Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING)
BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Gibraltar Shootings

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the repercussions to date in Northern Ireland of the killings of three suspected terrorists in Gibraltar.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I am aware of the interest in Northern Ireland in the deaths of three Provisional IRA terrorists in Gibraltar earlier this year. The inquest will be held in September by the Gibraltar coroner. It will address matters of substance and it is therefore not appropriate for me to comment any further at this stage.

Mr. Flannery: In view of the seriousness with which the inquest is rightly regarded, and assuming that proper precautions will be taken in the interests of safety, may we have an assurance that the Government will not intervene to stop the SAS soldiers who carried out this operation from attending the inquest?

Mr. King: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have already made it clear that we hope that the fullest evidence can be given at the inquest. It is in everyone's interests that that should be clear, not

least so that no one is in any doubt about the appalling outrage that would have been committed in Gibraltar had the terrorists' plans not been interdicted.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his latter remarks are those that should go out from the House? Two things are not in dispute: that those people were terrorists, and that they were planning the most brutal and dastardly outrage in the history of the IRA.

Mr. King: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and it cannot be said often enough. What might have happened on that occasion if more than 60kg of Semtex had gone off in that confined space in the centre of Gibraltar would have been outside the realms of any previous outrage. As my hon. Friend said, the IRA has admitted that they were its members engaged on active service.

Mr. McNamara: We are all agreed that it would have been the most terrible atrocity had those 60 kg of Semtex gone off in the centre of Gibraltar. That is why we want to know why the Government were prepared to allow a car, which had been checked through Spain, across the border and into the centre of Gibraltar, to be left alone for two and half hours when it was believed that it might contain such explosives. Why did the Government take the action that they did in relation to the car when they believed that the explosion would not take place until the procession on Tuesday——

Mr. Harris: Weasel words.

Mr. McNamara: They are not weasel words. From that decision and those deaths in Gibraltar came the deaths at Milltown and the tragic deaths of two British soldiers. They were a direct result. The Government should be concerned about maintaining peace and respect for the law in the British Isles and in Northern Ireland. That is at risk, and that is why I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Secretary of State for Defence to withdraw the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) about the restrictions that will be placed on the amount of evidence that can be given by the SAS soldiers, if they attend the inquest. Will we get all the facts, or only the circumscribed facts that the Secretary of State is suggesting?

Mr. King: The first thing that I can do in response to the hon. Gentleman is simply to say, as I said in my answer, that the inquest will address matters of substance. The issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised are not for bandying across the Floor of the House. They are extremely germane to the inquest. No doubt they will have to be thoroughly examined, and will be, I have no doubt, by those concerned and the counsel representing them. In the interests of the proper proceedings that will now take place, that is the procedure that should be followed.

Identity Cards

Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of an identity card in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): We have no present plans to introduce identity cards, but this is a matter that is regularly reviewed in consultation with the security forces.

Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to the security forces, who have to carry identity cards, if, after a terrorist atrocity, they could readily identify whether people stopped at road blocks were local, from another part of the Province, or from over the border where people do not even need to have a passport?

Mr. Stewart: I remind my hon. Friend that in Northern Ireland the security forces already have powers under the emergency powers legislation to establish identity. The question of identity cards is a practical matter and I am certainly aware of the arguments. However, in Northern Ireland the problems are different in nature from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. We would need to be persuaded that the advantages clearly outweighed the disadvantages before we incurred not only the cost and administrative problems, but the obvious difficulties of enforcement.

Mr. William Ross: If we are to have a card to identify under-age drinkers, a card to identify football hooligans, and as people in Northern Ireland already have to identify themselves when they come to vote, is there any good reason why we should not have a comprehensive identity card system, not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom? Surely the only people in Northern Ireland who would object to identity cards are the fellow travellers of terrorists. Normal law-abiding citizens would be delighted to carry cards to help the security forces.

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises. However, this is not a simple issue. Very considerable questions are involved in the matter of implementation and enforcement. If we were persuaded that this was undoubtedly an advantage and that it outweighed the difficulties, then, as I say, that could be taken into account in future when the matter is reviewed. We keep the matter under review, as I said earlier.

Mr. Kilfedder: Why does the Minister say that it would be difficult to administer an identity card system? Could not that system be linked, as it is in other countries, with the social security system? At the moment the police and the Army can check immediately the registration and ownership of a motor car by signalling through to the central computer and receiving the answer back within seconds. Surely there is an unanswerable case for identity cards, especially as the Government have leant on the soccer clubs to force them to introduce identity cards.

Mr. Stewart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep the matter under review. I note what has been said this afternoon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me, after such a short spell, to be able to pass judgment on what is a very intricate matter. These are important questions, and I was very interested to hear the exchanges today.

Education

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to improve the standard of education of the lowest 40 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Curriculum

initiatives, which the Government have already under-taken in Northern Ireland, are aimed specifically at enhancing the educational opportunities available to less able pupils. In addition, one of the main objectives of the proposals for education reform is to provide a balanced curriculum and common means of assessment for all children so that pupils with learning difficulties can be identified more effectively and the necessary remedial action taken.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is wide admiration for the education provided for academically inclined children in Northern Ireland, but real concern about the under-achievement of the bottom 40 per cent.? Does he also accept that the whole curriculum for children in that area needs to be re-thought, and that it is especially important for that to happen so that those children may be given the chance that they deserve?

Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend's assessment of the situation in Nothern Ireland. I assure him that, although decisions have not yet been taken as a result of consultation on the education reform proposals, we wish to make available to children and to their teachers a system that is as flexible as possible, so that it might best be shaped and moulded to meet the needs of the less able children.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister assist those who are preparing for change in Northern Ireland by publishing all examination results this year and relating those results to the attainment levels and abilities of the pupils? Does he agree that qualifications must have relevance to the world of work? Does he further agree that preparation for life and work often means more than attaining a questionable little certificate at the end of one's school career?

Dr. Mawhinney: I agree that the education system should prepare people for the world of work. I agree also that education involves more than a simply utilitarian function. With respect to employment, it also involves the broadening of the mind and the developing of the personality. Having said all that in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, I am not sure that I share the perception that I have of the underlying reason for his question.

Ms. Mowlam: Is the Minister aware of the recent national report on child care, which highlights the appallingly inadequate system of child care in Northern Ireland? It is a system that provides only 2·8 places per thousand in Northern Ireland, compared with 16·7 per thousand for the whole of the United Kingdom? What is the Minister's response to those parents with nursery age children in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Mawhinney: First, I do not accept the designation of the position in Northern Ireland as appalling. Secondly, the hon. Lady will be aware that in primary schools in Northern Ireland there is a much higher proportion of nursery age children than in England and Wales.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask for private conversations to take place elsewhere?

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects were discussed at his last meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I met Irish Ministers yesterday at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference. A copy of the joint statement issued after the meeting has been placed in the Library. As indicated in the joint statement, among the subjects discussed were security, Government proposals for disadvantaged areas of Belfast, for promoting fair employment, the International Fund and relations between the security forces and the community.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the report that the Stalker-Sampson inquiry was discussed during yesterday's talks and that the British Government gave assurances that disciplinary action would be taken against certain members of the RUC, why is no disciplinary action being taken against Jack Hermon, who is clearly unfit to hold office as Chief Constable? If we believe even half the allegations in Mr. Stalker's book, early retirement is not good enough. The man should be dismissed and charged.

Mr. King: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct. He may be aware that disciplinary charges have been preferred against a number of members of the RUC. The position of Sir John Hermon, the Chief Constable of the RUC, was considered by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, whose responsibility it is, and its decision has already been announced.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite obvious difficulties in a number of areas, the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a developing success and that yesterday's meeting is a further example of that development?

Mr. King: I have yet to hear any convincing argument in the House or elsewhere, and nobody can seriously believe, that we are likely to be more successful in tackling the evil of terrorism if we do so in isolation in Northern Ireland rather than in co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. Yesterday's meeting was extremely encouraging in the respect that I described. It showed increasing goodwill between the RUC and the Garda, represented by the Chief Constable and the Commissioner.
I should like to pay tribute, as did the Irish Ministers yesterday, to the leadership of Sir John Hermon, especially in respect of the RUC, its growing reputation and standing and most recently in the matter of its conduct with respect to parades and marches in Northern Ireland, about which all sides have paid their compliments to the RUC.

Mr. Hume: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John D. Taylor.

Mr. Hume: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Very well, Mr. Hume.

Mr. Hume: In relation to security matters that may have been discussed, does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland recognise that adequate protection for police stations is not only necessary, but seriously necessary? Can he tell me

why the protection given in the city of Derry is so different from that anywhere else in Northern Ireland? It disrupts the life of the entire city and is causing serious concern. Will he consider urgently reviewing the protection that is given to police stations with a view to ensuring that adequate protection is provided which does not disrupt the life of the entire city, especially when other Departments agree that the city is starting to move forward?

Mr. King: There is a real difference between the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume).
The hon. Gentleman raised a serious issue, about which I am concerned, but I hope that nobody will forget who is responsible for the disruption and inconvenience. It i.s the deliberate determination of the IRA to inflict, by explosion, attacks on the police stations. Evidence has already been given for that and it leads, unfortunately, to measures having to be taken. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), who is the Minister with responsibility for the environment, was in Derry yesterday, where he was made aware of anxieties about this matter. I have discussed the issue further this morning. We shall be anxious to see how we can tackle this real problem while causing the minimum disruption to commercial and social life in that city.

Sir John Farr: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to raise with the people from Dublin a matter that is causing a good deal of anxiety in the House—the lack of security on important information that is passed from Belfast to Dublin about the movements of important people when travelling to or from Dublin to go abroad by air?

Mr. King: The matter to which my hon. Friend refers is of concern and it is still under investigation. I await a full report. The matter was mentioned in passing. Irish Ministers share our feeling to the full and the Taoiseach is on record as expressing his horror at the outrage. Ir. is a little early to identify how the problems arose. There is considerable traffic of people backwards and forwards and, in general, security has been extremely good in terms of information. Any lapse such as this is most serious and tragic. Perhaps I might mention in passing that, as the House is meeting, the funeral is taking place at Hillsborough of the Hanna family. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we condemn the outrage and express our deep sympathy to the family of the victims of this latest IRA atrocity.

Mr. Duffy: The Secretary of State mentioned the International Fund for Ireland. Can he say something about any agreement that was reached at the meeting on its early and effective application to disadvantaged areas?

Mr. King: The International Fund for Ireland is already involved in a range of projects. I have expressed my hope that it will be able to play an increased role and complement some of the initiatives in which I and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the environment, whom I have asked to take responsibility for the "Making Belfast Work" initiative, have been involved. We shall be anxious to see how the fund can complement such initiatives.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is not the good faith of the Government of the Irish Republic in question? Did my right hon. Friend ask the representatives whom he saw yesterday to justify the restrictions that they have recently placed unilaterally on the extradition process from the Republic to the United Kingdom?

Mr. King: I have made clear my anxieties, and did so again yesterday, about the problems that have arisen over extradition. My hon. Friend will be aware that in respect of one problem which has arisen recently the Irish Government intend to appeal against the district court's judgment. We attach the greatest importance to effective extradition. Clearly there are problems in that area and they relate to both terrorist and non-terrorist crimes. It is also clear that the Irish Government view with some concern certain aspects of this matter which we shall discuss again.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is inadequate for the joint communique merely to condemn continuing terrorist outrages in a week when we have been mourning, among others, the Hannas? We share the sympathy that the Secretary of State expressed on behalf of the House. Does he accept that there is something wrong if the brigade that is supposed to be looking after the border is logistically under strength?

Mr. King: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our approach is a great deal more comprehensive than merely expressing our horror or outrage. We discussed several specific matters yesterday designed to heighten that co-operation, but all start from the basis of whether there can be good will and trust between the respective security forces north and south of the border. In that respect, I was much encouraged by yesterday's meeting. We have additional Army resources over those which used to exist in Northern Ireland, and it is certainly not a question of a lack of resources for the security forces.

De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.

Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a further statement on progress in recovering public moneys owing since the collapse of De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): As I informed my hon. Friend on 7 June in answer to his written question, some £12·6 million has been recovered through the receivership. The recovery of further amounts will depend on the outcome of legal actions and inquiries in the United Kingdom, the United States and Switzerland. In the United States the trustee in bankruptcy has not yet paid a dividend, as the process of proving and agreeing claims is not yet complete.

Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that more than £50 million of taxpayers' money remains outstanding from this disgraceful scandal, which includes $5 million which were stolen from British taxpayers by Mr. De Lorean in the GPD swindle in Switzerland? Will my hon. Friend assure us that he will continue to press hard to get back every penny that was stolen by Mr. De Lorean?

Mr. Viggers: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the Government are satisfied that all necessary courses of

action are being followed expeditiously. As legal proceedings are pending in relation to the responsibility for those losses, it would not be advisable for me to add to what I have already said.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that I resigned from the Labour Government, who approved the original payment, and that I criticised both the original payment and the subsequent payments by Conservative Governments? In pursuing the recovery of the money, will the Minister turn his mind to how the money was approved in the first place, the advice from civil servants and the link between the Civil Service, De Lorean and the company? Clearly, bad advice was given to Ministers, which tragically led to wrong decisions.

Mr. Viggers: I know the hon. Gentleman's long connection with the case and I recognise the points that he has made, but it would be inappropriate to add to what I have already said.

Short Brothers

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further proposals he is considering for privatising Short Brothers.

Mr. Viggers: I informed the House in a statement on 21 July that the Government were ready to consider suitable proposals that might lead to the acquisition of Short Brothers by private sector interests.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: While privatisation remains the ultimate goal of the Government's policy towards the company, can my hon. Friend say what steps are being taken in the meantime to return the company to profitability and to give it the long-overdue capital restructuring and the same approach that has been given to other state industries that have been returned to the private sector?

Mr. Viggers: I recognise that the company would benefit from further capitalisation. However, we take the view that the proper disciplines of the private sector are appropriate to the company and that it would be for the private sector acquirers of the enterprise to decide what further capitalisation they propose to make.

Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware of the Opposition's deep concern about Short Brothers? The firm is a flagship for Northern Ireland because of its high technology and modern development. If it were to be sold off and then broken up, that would be a disaster. The Government should leave Short Brothers in public hands and develop the company, rather than retard it.

Mr. Viggers: We are well aware of the importance of Short Brothers to Northern Ireland and I recognise that the work force must be apprehensive. However, we believe that the long-term interests of the employees and of the company generally will best be served by the company operating within the private sector.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Given that the production of commercial aircraft is subsidised either by open subsidy or by the construction of military aircraft, will the Minister explain why Short Brothers has been singled out and accused of being a loss-maker?

Mr. Viggers: It is quite wrong to say that Short Brothers has been singled out in terms of privatisation. The policy of privatisation—in which the Government firmly believe—has been extended to some 17 enterprises in Great Britain and we believe that it is right that companies and organisations in Northern Ireland should also benefit from the disciplines and opportunities of the private sector.

Mr. Kilfedder: If Short Brothers is sold off by the Government—and I hope that it will not be—will they ensure that the purchaser gives a guarantee to maintain the employment level in that admirable firm, which, as the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, leads in technology in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister also ensure that the eventual purchaser will not be receiving money from Libya, especially in view of the important missile division at Short Brothers?

Mr. Viggers: We shall, of course, take account of all interests, including the national interest, in considering all the proposals that we have for the acquisition of Short Brothers by the private sector. We shall also, of course, take account of employment interests.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Is the Minister aware that in London today there are representatives of all the work force of Short Brothers in Belfast and that they are unanimous in the view that privatisation of Short Brothers would be to the disadvantage not only of their own jobs but of the company as a whole? Is the Minister further aware that they feel that if the company is sold, either wholly or in parts, that will lead inevitably to closure and to massive job losses? What reassurance can the Minister give to those people in London today and to the work force as a whole?

Mr. Viggers: The future of Short Brothers is best served, not by continued dependence on public ownership, but by the disciplines and opportunities of the private sector. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that in the 17 public sector organisations that have moved to the private sector in Great Britain there are about 655,000 workers, many of whom now find it far more advantageous to be operating within the private sector and very few of whom, I suspect, would want to be transferred back into the public sector.

Security

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions on 30 June, 11 people have been killed in Northern Ireland. These deaths include the murder of the Hanna family at Killeen, a technical officer and two civilians by the Falls road swimming baths, a taxi driver caught in cross fire in a Provisional IRA attack, and a PIRA member blown up by his own mortar and two others killed in apparent sectarian attacks. I must also inform the House that, sadly, the soldier seriously injured at Cullyhanna yesterday has since died.
The efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield significant results and a number of potentially serious attacks have been prevented. Since the beginning of the year a total of 217 people have been charged with serious offences, including 12 with murder and 15 with attempted murder. A total of 360 weapons, approximately 72,000 rounds of ammunition and 4.000 lb of explosives havc been recovered in Northern Ireland
I also understand that the Garda Siochana has recovered some 240 weapons, 140,000 rounds of ammunition and 600 lb of commercial explosives.

Mr. Livingstone: May I join the Secretary of State in expressing shock at the record that he has read out? Does he agree that, for the security forces to be effective, they must be seen to be impartial? Has he any comment to make on the statement of a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), on Channel 4 on 17 July that there was a dirty tricks propaganda unit operating in Northern Ireland? How does he equate that statement with the statement of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in answer to me on 24 March this year, to the effect that if I had any evidence of such a unit I should make it available to him? I assume that the Secretary of State will accepi the word of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, so will he now hold a full public inquiry to lay the issue to rest once and for all?

Mr. King: I am not aware of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who is one of my predecessors, but I have nothing to add to any previous comments that I have made on this matter.

Mr. Molyneaux: Further to the previous answer that the Secretary of State gave regarding risks in crossing the frontier, will he seek to convince those public figures who seem to make a habit of crossing the frontier that they have a heavy responsibility, first, to the security forces who protect them and, secondly, to the general public if they run unnecessary risks? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would remind them of the wartime question, "Is your journey really necessary?"

Mr. King: Until I have a full report, the right hon. Gentleman will understand if [do not follow him in detail on that. He has raised important considerations for everybody in public life and in a position of responsibility in Northern Ireland. It is our desire, and it is certainly the desire of everybody responsible for protection in the security forces, that those wbom they protect should be able to live as normal a life as possible. At the same time, I accept that people have a responsibility to consider the security of those who are appointed and required to protect them.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Against the background of killings, woundings, and grief that lies behind the list of atrocities that my right hon. Friend has reported to the House, would we not be better occupied, not in arguing the toss, as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) just has, but rather in demonstrating our undying support for the police, the security forces and all people on all sides in Northern Ireland as they face a horrendous onslaught on the freedom and democracy for which this House seeks to stand?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the clear and forthright way in which he puts his argument. The people of Northern Ireland and the security forces have had to face a challenge, a trial, a time of endurance beyond parallel in the Western world in recent history. It is against that that one judges the efforts of those whose only interest is to dive into the gutter to find any bit of dirt that they can throw at some very brave people.

Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend say what success he is having in defeating terrorism by attacking the funds of terrorists used to buy the weapons that cause the death and destruction to which he referred—in particular by attacking a protection racket that destroys jobs in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: I am fully persuaded that the removal from terrorists of the resources that fund much of their activity is as important as the direct attack on terrorism itself. I am under no illusion, and I know that many of their resources come not from collections overseas but from racketeering, gangsterism and Mafia-type activity throughout Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. It is interesting that the recent efforts of the Garda Siochana in respect of cross-border smuggling show a clear understanding between our Government and the Government of the Republic of the threat posed by racketeering in all forms.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Have the security forces in Northern Ireland—in the widest sense of the Army and the police—at any stage in the past been involved in training people who work for private security firms? As I am not asking a question relating to security, I ask the Secretary of State not to hide behind that as an excuse. The question is to do with the relationship between the private and public sectors.

Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman said, that matter does not seem to arise under this question.

Mr. Gow: Do the Chief Constable of the RUC and the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland believe that it would assist them in their attempts to defeat terrorism if there were the mandatory introduction of indentity cards for all in the Province?

Mr. King: No, I have had no such representations.

Kilroot Power Station

Mr. Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now give the go-ahead to phase II of the development of the Kilroot power station; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Viggers: I announced on 15 July that the Government had decided to meet the need for new generating capacity in Northern Ireland, which will occur in the mid-1990s, by installing the third and fourth generating sets in the Kilroot power station as dual coal-oil fired units. On the same day I announced plans to examine ways of privatising the entire Northern Ireland electricity system.

Mr. Meale: Will the Minister explain what effect that will have on the projected time scale for lignite exploitation and on the proposed building of a lignite power station?

Mr. Viggers: After the completion of the Kilroot power station, the next generating station will probably be

lignite-powered. The lignite resources in Northern Ireland remain available for development for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. On this occasion it was more advantageous from the national point of view, and for all concerned, that the Kilroot power station should be completed.

Education

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received recently from educational groups in the Province; and on what subjects.

Dr. Mawhinney: I have in recent months received a large number of representations, written and oral, on a wide range of educational topics. These include representations on the consultation paper on education reform, substitution provisions in schools, school development proposals, the cross-community contact scheme, youth service review and funding for arts, museums, sport and community services.

Mr. Flynn: Following the decision by the High Court that the Department of Education in Northern Ireland is guilty of sex discrimination in its administration of the 11-plus examination, what is the Government's view of that judgment? What action will the Minister take to ensure that the girls who have been disadvantaged this year will have that disadvantage corrected? What guarantee will the Government give that in future the administration of the 11-plus examination in Northern Ireland will be decided entirely on merit and not on the sex of the participants?

Dr. Mawhinney: That case remains sub judice and it would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment.

Harland and Wolff

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the expected level of Government subsidy to be provided for any potential purchaser of Harland and Wolff shipyards; what is the present level of subsidy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Viggers: The terms of any sale would be a matter of negotiation. Any proposal would be carefully scrutinised to take account of European Community requirements. Harland and Wolff received £58 million of Government funding in 1987–88.

Mr. Madden: In view of the persistent high unemployment in Northern Ireland and the fragile nature of the economy, why do the Government persistently push their doctrinaire and dogmatic plans for privatisation in an economy and country where those plans are most unwelcome?

Mr. Viggers: First, the amount of public money that has been spent with Harland and Wolff and with Shorts in recent years has been large. Secondly, those organisations stand to benefit from private sector disciplines and opportunities. On the question of Harland and Wolff, we have had intimations of interest from parties other than Mr. Tikkoo and, as I have previously made clear, we welcome such approaches and will consider carefully any proposals that are put to us.

Dr. Godman: As the sale of Harland and Wolff has a significance that extends far beyond Northern Ireland, especially if EC shipbuilding intervention fund money is used by the Government on Mr. Tikkoo's plans, will the Minister give an assurance that if that shipbuilding intervention fund money is used, the engines and other major items of equipment will be purchased from British companies and not from companies outwith the European Community?

Mr. Viggers: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires, although if he wishes to table a specific question I shall, of course, address that.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister estimate the proportion of subsidies for Harlands and Shorts which are actually going to subsidise employment in Scotland and England?

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There is certainly some benefit that flows to parts of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland through those subsidies.

Mr. McNamara: The disciplines of the private market have generally meant capital reconstruction and large falls in the number of people employed. Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no capital reconstruction and no sell-off of Harlands and Shorts on the cheap to the private sector, and a guarantee that whoever buys the companies will maintain present employment levels?

Mr. Viggers: If the hon. Gentleman were to look at the balance sheets of Harlands and Shorts he would agree that some form of capital reconstruction is required and could be beneficial. It would be for the future owners to decide on future employment levels.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Winnick: What is the most up-to-date excuse that the Prime Minister can offer for the latest appalling trade figures, which show how fragile is the economic recovery of which she constantly boasts? Is the Prime Minister not concerned that the trade figures will merely give further ammunition to her dear and close friend the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in his criticism of the Government, when he is, after all, only trying to help?

The Prime Minister: As I indicated on a previous occasion, the present current account deficit is being readily financed by an inflow of private sector capital. That reflects confidence in the United Kingdom as a place to invest and is helping to finance high investment by the private sector—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that—which will boost future export performance.

Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of this country's irrevocable commitment to full membership and participation in the European Community, does my right hon. Friend believe that our interests there are really best served by a policy of isolation, however splendid?

The Prime Minister: No, and nor has this country followed a policy of isolation. Indeed, if I may gently say so, this country has been very practical in making progress in the European Community: first, on budgetary matters; secondly, in sorting out the common agricultural policy; and thirdly, during this country's presidency of the European Community, starting on the single market to be completed by 1992. The single market now actually comes above the common agricultural policy, which seems to be left behind in the objectives of the EEC. I should also point out that, far from being isolationist, it was this Government who got a Channel tunnel started.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall just four months ago telling me that the balance of payments deficit of more than £1 billion for February was a freak? There have now been four such deficits in six months. Were they all freaks—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to allow the right hon. Gentleman to put his question.

Mr. Kinnock: There have been deficits of more than £1 billion four times in the past six months. Were they all freaks, or were they proof of the Chancellor's brilliance?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had read the speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the Institute of Economic Affairs he would have learnr. the answer that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who rather pre-empted the question that the right hon. Gentleman asked. Yes, there has been a deficit on current account. Part of it is accounted for by very high investment in this country, which the right hon. Gentleman has always wanted. Secondly, there is very high growth and a number of semi-fabricated components coming in. Thirdly, I agree that we must get some of the demand down, and I hope that the measures that we are taking to bring down inflation will also deal with the current account.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister speaks of success. Can she tell us how she arrives at the conclusion that one month's £1 billion deficit is a freak and that four such deficits are a success?

The Prime Minister: There was a change in the Common Market in the way in which imports and exports are accounted for—[Interruption.] I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to know the facts, but there was that change, which affected us all. On the first quarter of the balance of payments—we now have the second quarter —there was, yes, a deficit. There was also a positive balancing factor, which was greater than the deficit.

Mr. Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend accept that one of the consequences of her early reshuffle is to take away many speculative stories from the press over the summer? The result will be that the press will have to concentrate on the precarious position of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister: I hope that perhaps we might all have an August off.

Mr. Steel: —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is all a waste of time.

Mr. Steel: Such enthusiasm is rare. I ask the Prime Minister whether, during the summer recess, she will ponder on the fact that throughout her premiership the Government have enjoyed the unprecedented benefits of the income from North sea oil, yet throughout she has told the country that it must endure higher unemployment, curtailments in health and education and growth in poverty, all to make sacrifices for economic recovery. Is the expected trade deficit of £10 billion by the end of the year evidence of that recovery?

The Prime Minister: The evidence of the recovery can be seen throughout the country in a higher standard of living, greater enterprise, greater profits and greater export volumes. Having heard what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, I can understand why the Liberal party is at last selling off the family steel.

Mr. Hind: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the launch of the new employment training programme in September and the opposition to it from some of the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, from Labour-controlled authorities, such as Liverpool and Bristol, and from the TGWU, NUPE and NALGO. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that, despite the opposition of the shortsighted in denying the long-term unemployed the skills to obtain jobs, she will presss ahead with the employment training programme as a real way of tackling unemployment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is vital that the programme succeeds. We shall need a higher proportion of the work force to be skilled, and therefore many more of its members will need training. Moreover, as we enter the 1990s a smaller proportion of the work force will be leaving school. Therefore, training programmes will assume an even greater importance in future.

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fatchett: Is the Prime Minister saying that it does not matter how great the trade deficit becomes?

The Prime Minister: No. We are not complacent about it in any way. There is a great budget surplus, which means that the trade deficit is not caused by the public sector in any way. Private sector investment and finance for the future is easily being met by the confidence of outside investors in the United Kingdom. I had thought and hoped that the Opposition were in favour of higher investment in industry.

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent remarks of Mr. Ed Koch, the mayor of New York, following his visit to Ireland? Does she agree that some of his countrymen, including candidates for the presidency, would do better to make statements following experience rather than engage in blatant political vote-grubbing?

The Prime Minister: I do, indeed, welcome Mayor Koch's remarks, which I have seen reported in the press, and I admire his forthrightness in making them. I am glad that he took time to come to Northern Ireland to see what is happening, and to do so with an open mind. If more people came with open minds and looked at what is happening on the ground, many others would be making similar remarks, which would be a very good thing for us all.

Mr. Harry Ewing: All her political life the Prime Minister has used people ruthlessly to get what she wanted for herself. Was it really necessary this week for her to use her junior Ministers and Back Benchers as she did to divert attention from the disgraceful pay-off to the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), and also from the scathing attack on her by her right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

The Prime Minister: I remember the total ruthlessness, wholly supported by the Opposition, during the coal strike. If one wanted ruthlessness, that was it, and most of us will never forget it. That was pure Socialism— intimidating.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) will be an excellent commissioner, both for Europe and in representing this country in Europe and maintaining the British identity.

Mr. Tebbit: Will my right hon. Friend reflect further on the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) about the importance of training as a guard against long-term unemployment? Will she make time, before she goes to Australia tomorrow, to call in the Leader of the Opposition and give him a little instruction, as it is most important to both her interests and those of the Government that the right hon. Gentleman keeps his job?

The Prime Minister: No, but I think that my right hon. Friend could probably give him a bit of advice.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: If the Prime Minister is so keen on developing the road towards the internal market, why does she want to dismiss the commissioner who has pioneered that work—and, furthermore, dismiss the commissioner for the environment and consumer affairs, who has shown a great grasp of his brief and yet has been thrown aside? Will she explain that?

The Prime Minister: When the two commissioners were nominated and appointed by the Commission, I made it perfectly clear that I did not think that commissioners should stay there for too long. I believe that the new commissioner whom we have nominated—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks— will take forward the single market. All his experience will


be appropriate to that end, and he will do the job extremely well. I did not think it right to give Lord Cockfield a further term of four years, although I am the first to admit his splendid services in starting off the single market.

Mr. Page: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Page: The House knows of the increase in house prices, and with it gazumping and less than ethical behaviour by both sellers and estate agents. In the next Session of Parliament, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing legislation to bring our law more into line with that of Scotland, or a code of practice with the same status in law as the codes of practice for employment and industrial relations?

The Prime Minister: I have great sympathy with those who find themselves gazumped because of such practices. I understand that a number of the pre-eminent groups of

estate agents are getting together to try to formulate a code of practice. That is very welcome news and I hope thal they will be sucessful. So far, we have not thought of making it statutory.

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Prime Minister think it fair that a civil servant or journalist can face a two-year gaol sentence for revealing fraud, crime or abuse of official authority, yet there is no defence in law even if he or she can show that the only way of stopping such abuse was to expose it in the public domain?

The Prime Minister: I would not accept trie hon. Gentleman's last premise. I do not believe that the only way of stopping such abuse is to expose it in the public domain. The way of stopping such abuse is to report it to the proper authority, where it will be taken up.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for the half week when we return?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 19 October—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1988 (Cm. 344).
THURSDAY 20 October—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1988 (Cm. 344).
FRIDAY 21 October—There will be a debate on the educational needs of industry on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Dobson: How long is the spillover session before the Queen's Speech likely to last? An enormous queue of Government business seems to be developing. Can the right hon. Gentleman put an end to the rumour that the spillover period is likely to last so long that Her Majesty may be tempted to combine the Queen's Speech with her Christmas day broadcast?
When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to have health questions and social security questions, now that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has bifurcated the old Department, so that we can question the two Secretaries of State separately? Will he also be arranging during the spillover period for the Chancellor to come to the House to give us the Treasury's latest estimate of the likely annual trade deficit, currently believed privately to be about £10 billion?
Will the Leader of the House take note of the serious criticisms made by the Select Committee on Energy of the Government's plans to sell off the electricity supply industry? Will he assure the House that no legislation will be brought before it before that report has been fully debated here and before the consultations proposed by the Select Committee have been completed?
To return to the subject of strip searching of women at Greenham common, will the Leader of the House recognise that the parliamentary answer given by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley), and the two subsequent letters from Defence Ministers to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) are plainly and flatly contradicted by the sworn evidence of a police witness? Therefore, will he arrange in the spillover period for a Minister to come before the House to put the record straight?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot at this stage tell the hon. Gentleman exactly how long the spillover session will be, but it will be a sufficient time to deal with the outstanding matters. Judging by the Session so far, that will not be unduly long.
I can confirm that arrangements have been made for the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health to have separate slots for oral questions. The Department of Health will be top for questions on Tuesday 1 November, and if the House is still sitting the Department of Social Security will be top for questions on Monday 14 November.
On the question about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would come to the House if he had anything important to say. I do not believe that he will necessarily accept any instructions or guidance from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), whose judgment in these matters is somewhat faulty.
The report of the Select Committee on Energy which has just been received deals with an important subject to which I am sure the House will wish to return, but perhaps we should wait until there has been a chance to study the report rather than the press reports about it, which do not seem to present the full picture.
With regard to strip searching at Greenham common, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave a very full reply to a parliamentary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) yesterday confirming that his predecessor's answer was correct. I have nothing further to add to that answer.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made in the recess and repeated during the first week we come back on the report of the inspector on the Barlow Clowes scandal that is likely to be produced during the recess? Will he ensure that if, in the recess, the inspector holds the Department of Trade and Industry even vaguely liable, immediate and full compensation will be paid to the distraught savers?

Mr. Wakeham: The House is aware that inspectors have been appointed under the Companies Act 1985 to investigate the affairs and membership of James Ferguson Holdings plc, the parent company of Barlow Clowes. In addition, Sir Godfray Le Quesne expects to complete his report on the DTI's handling of the case before the end of the recess, provided that there is no legal impediment. The report will be published as soon as is practicable. Any statement should await the outcome of those investigations.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Notwithstanding an apology of sorts to Stella Mann-Cairns from the current Minister of State for the Armed Forces yesterday, in which he said:
I should like to take this opportunity of offering your former constituent an apology for the treatment to which she was subjected and the distress which the circumstances of her arrest must have caused her",
following her successful court action against the Ministry earlier this month when strip searching at Greenham common was proved, is the Leader of the House aware that to date no statement of apology either to me or to the House has been given following the denial by the Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley), that strip searching had taken place? At least he had the decency to resign from the Government this week, no doubt over this issue.
Is the Leader of the House aware that there is an early-day motion signed by 113 right hon. and hon. Members demanding an apology from the Secretary of State for Defence and from him for the disgraceful, despicable and degrading practices which are taking place at Greenham common? Will he either apologise or resign at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to add to what I said to the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson),


except that, first, my right hon. Friend did not resign from the Government on this issue and it is quite wrong of the hon. Gentleman, who knows that it is wrong, to say that that is the case; and, secondly, if he is quoting from letters or answers, he should quote in a more balanced way.
The judgment of the Newbury county court did not imply that the lady had been strip searched. In the case of other personal searches conducted at Greenham common at the time, to the best of our knowledge, the practice of the Ministry of Defence police conducting the searches did not include a requirement to remove all clothing.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that business questions are about business for the week that we come back. Any wider issues can possibly be raised in the summer Adjournment debate.

Mr. John Hannam: May we have a debate as soon as we get back on the Select Committee report on electricity privatisation? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the press reports were a grave distortion of the conclusions of the Select Committee, which were generally supportive of privatisation? Is he further aware that most of us fully support the proposals of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, which will create greater diversity of supply and therefore downward pressure on prices?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. I remember the warm welcome given to the announcement by my right hon. Friend of his proposals on 25 February, including that by a number of members of the Select Committee.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow time when we return to debate the other report released yesterday by the Select Committee on Energy, which described the costs of relocating the Department of Energy to Buckingham Gate as unjustified and excessive and which suggested that the Department and staff be relocated outside London? In particular, it suggested that the oil division staff should be relocated to Aberdeen, where there are only 21 employees of the Department at present.

Mr. Wakeham: It would be more helpful to the House to rely on our usual practice of the Government first responding to the Select Committee report. Then we can consider any debates that might arise.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that before the House reassembles in October it is likely that the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a number of decisions on county structure plans which are of immense importance to various localities? As there will not be an opportunity to question him in the House, will my right hon. Friend urge the Secretary of State to let hon. Members who are concerned know of his decision at least at the same time as he informs the press and media and not afterwards?

Mr. Wakeham: That sounds like a reasonable request. I shall certainly refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the Common Market when we come back, so that the Prime Minister can take part in

it? On the Jimmy Young programme yesterday she tried to give the impression to the nation that she had suddenly become an anti-marketeer. Perhaps a debate would give her a chance to explain why, in spite of all the cosmetics that were used yesterday, since 1984 the Prime Minister has presided over the handing over of more than £5 billion net of taxpayers' money to the Common Market, has gone along with the single European market theme, and has allowed and cajoled Britain into becoming embedded in Common Market bureaucracy—even more, some would say, than did the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who is supposed to be her right hon. Friend.

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend's leadership in dealing with Common Market matters in recent years has been an example to a great many other people of how these things should be done. I can promise the hon. Gentleman this: we shall return to these issues because we have a matter of unfinished business to deal with. It will be dealt with in the overspill, and when it is the hon. Gentleman can contribute to the debate.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the recess Cleveland county council will be considering its response to the Butler-Sloss report on the child abuse controversy in that county? Will he therefore arrange for a statement on that response to be made to the House when we reconvene, so that Cleveland, which is a Socialist local authority in the hands of the town hall unions, will not be tempted to tackle this matter by means of a media-relations whitewash?

Mr. Wakeham: Certainly we shall refer to these matters and discuss them again in the House. I hope that my hon. Friend will let me wait until after the recess to decide on the form in which it would be most appropriate for those discussions to take place.

Mr. Frank Cook: When considering the petition just made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that much of the damage that surrounded the Cleveland child abuse inquiry came as a result of the same sort of irresponsible accusations as those that have just been made by the hon. Gentleman? Remembering that we are talking about child abuse and the damage that can be done to families, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that inquiries will be allowed to get on with their work of inquiry and to come up with responsible clinical results and recommendations without interference from busybodies like the hon. Member for Stockton, South?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that inquiries should be allowed to get on with their work and that their reports should be considered at the conclusion of the inquiry, but the hon. Gentleman did not put his point in the constructive way that he usually does.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that there is no need whatsoever to introduce this unconstructive attitude into the Cleveland child abuse case? If my right hon. Friend had listened to me several weeks ago when I asked for a debate on the matter, these exchanges would not have happened and we would not have had to wait for the whitewash by


Cleveland county council. The House is superior to that body and should have had an opportunity to express its opinion.

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly listened to my hon. Friend's advice, and I am sorry that I was unable to accept it. My hon. Friend is being optimistic if he thinks that another debate in the House would resolve many of the substantial issues arising from the case; more substantial remedies are required.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there are a number of outstanding matter days yet to be allocated to the Scottish Grand Committee? Is this not an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and will he correct it early in the overspill period? What provision is he making in the overspill period for a debate on the non-formation of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. Wakeham: Both matters must be dealt with and are best discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on questions? Some of us will have learnt with some sorrow of the decision to take social security questions on Mondays. In the past, an average of 300 questions have been tabled for health and social security matters, but only 50 for Scottish Question Time. Some 55 minutes is allowed for Scottish Question Time, yet we will be allowed only 35 minutes for questions to the Department of Social Security. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but Question Time is ordered for the convenience of the House in a way that we think most likely to receive general support. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I do not believe that I can make an early change.

Mr. Bill Michie: Bearing in mind the questions and concern expressed about the balance of payments, will the Leader of the House find time for, and guarantee, a debate on the manufacturing base of this country, which at present is in disarray? We cannot cope with the expansion that the Government claim is happening and therefore cannot control the economy. After 10 years of warnings about what would happen, we need to have a discussion about the manufacturing base of this country so that we can run it properly.

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman has not recognised that the economy is being run substantially better than when his party was in government, he has much to learn. We shall return to issues of the economy in the autumn, when no doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to put his views.

Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend take careful note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) said about Barlow Clowes? My hon. Friend's view is supported by many hon. Members. When does my right hon. Friend expect the Firearms (Amendment) Bill to return from the Lords, and are the Government contemplating adding an amendment to deal with the possession and sale of crossbows?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot say at this stage what will be dealt with when the Bill returns to the House. We shall deal with Lords amendments when it returns, at which stage there is limited scope for changing a Bill. I recognise the anxiety that has been expressed about Barlow Clowes, but it would not be right for me to add to what I have already said.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on the problems of young first-time house buyers that have been created by the constant series of increases in mortgage rates? Young people have been encouraged to buy their own homes, but they have no control over what they must pay because interest rates are being increased to cope with the balance of payments deficit. Is it not time that the Government and the House had some regard to the miseries that these increases are creating for young people who are fortunate enough to be in work?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that under the Government home ownership has increased throughout all sections of the community. I hope that that is welcomed by the hon. and learned Gentleman and every other hon. Member. These matters are debated in the House from time to time, but I cannot promise an early debate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that, if the report on Barlow Clowes is published about the time that the House reassembles, there will be an immediate statement from the Department of Trade and Industry and an early debate?
Will my right hon. Friend say whether, in the light of the separation of the Departments of Health and Social Security, time will be made available to the House to debate whether there should be a separate Select Committee? The present Select Committee would be happy to continue to monitor both Departments.

Mr. Wakeham: On my hon. Friend's second point, I have no plans at present for any change in the basis of Select Committees. However, it is early days yet and I want to take soundings from all parts of the House before any final decision is made.
On the matter of Barlow Clowes, I do not believe that it would be right for me to add anything further. However, I recognise the strong concern in the House and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is aware of it.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House ask his colleague with responsibility for social security to come to the House before we rise tomorrow and make a statement about the changes in the consultation paper on bed and board lodging for women's refuges? The paper contains no suggestion that any change has been considered which would protect women who are the subject of violence and who need urgent support. If the proposed changes are made, the refuges will close.

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise the hon. Lady that there will be a statement in the House, but I will certainly refer her comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and ask him to write to her, if that would be appropriate.

Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the most serious problem I have outlined in my early-day motion on cricket in schools?
[That this House recognises the value of cricket as a contribution to the health of school children and to this country's prospects of future success in international cricket; and calls on the Government to establish a national committee to develop criteria for the teaching and assessment of this sport and to issue guidelines to local education authorities to provide adequate funding for both indoor and outdoor cricket pitches, so that in the future more youngsters will take up cricket as a profession.]
In England, we have suffered a series of humiliating defeats and we have also seen behaviour by members of the English cricket team which cannot be approved. Most schools now eompletely ignore cricket. There is a need for the Government and local education authorities to turn sports sections towards our national game.

Mr. Wakeham: The answer I have before me is probably not adequate for the immensity of the problem facing us, but the Education Reform Bill includes provision for physical education to be a foundation subject within the national curriculum. Guidelines will be produced in due course on attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements for physical education. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend thinks that that is a comfort, and I am not sure that I do.

Mr. Allen McKay: May I return the Leader of the House to the recent report by the Select Committee on Energy? I agree that we should look in depth at the report and the Government's response to it. Does he agree with me that it would be wrong, given the conclusions of the report—they do not take a lot of reading—to introduce a Bill to privatise the electricity industry before the House has debated the report and the Government's response to it?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept that. I have said that we will be returning to that matter. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that a substantial number of the recommendations in the report refer to regulatory requirements that will happen post privatisation and on which the Government have not yet made their proposals known. To that extent, the Select Committee's report will be valuable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. David Wilshire: Can my right hon. Friend say when the House will have an opportunity to enable those of us who believe in the fundamental importance of family life to register our total opposition to the proposal to reduce the age at which children can get married without their parents' consent?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an opportunity in the business in the first week after the summer recess, but it is an important matter and there are a number of ways in which my hon. Friend could bring it before the House. I suggest that he takes up one of the opportunities available to him.

Mr. Tony Banks: There is great disappointment on both sides of the House at the failure of the Select Committee on the televising of proceedings of the House to publish a report before the summer recess, which all of us were led to believe would be the case. When

may we expect a report? Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that he is not dragging his feet—in conjunction with hon. Members on both sides who are still smarting from the decision of the House to allow the experiment to go ahead—to delay the production of a report? When does he expect the cameras to be in the Chamber? To what parliamentary event can we look forward? It will not now be the State opening, but will it be next year's Budget?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by the absence of the big fellow who usually sits beside him—the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—to express his views more freely than he sometimes does. I reject entirely his comments about the progress of the Select Committee. What is more, every member of the Select Committee, of whichever party, will agree that it has made good progress. It will report as soon as it can. It has not delayed consideration of the complex issues, but is considering them properly. I cannot give a date, because that depends on the rest of the Committee agreeing to the report, but we shall announce it as soon as possible.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is bound to be anxiety about the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon which appeared to rule out legislation on gazumping? Will he arrange for the Minister responsible to make a full statement on the negotiations that will take place with estate agents between now and October, and at that stage will the Minister make it plain that if no effective code of practice is in prospect the Government will consiider introducing legislation?

Mr. Wakeham: I can go no further than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went, but I did not hear her comments in the same way as my hon. Friend did. She said that she thought a substantial amount could be achieved by voluntary means. My hon. Friend and I will agree that, if the voluntary approach is possible, it would be the best way of proceeding at this stage.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Now that there is clear evidence that people in Harvard Securities have been manipulating the price of over-the-counter stock, and it is clear that many investors will lose more money in the coming months—people who invest in OTC stocks sold by Harvard Securities—is it not about time that the Department of Trade and Industry or someone moved in to close that company? Does not the investor protection legislation that has been introduced by the Government during the past few years extend as far as protecting those who, because of bad judgment, persist in wasting their money and throwing it down the drain of the over-the-counter market?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government are as committed as any to stamping out fraud and abuse wherever it occurs, and have taken practical steps to make the job more effective. The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to pass any evidence in support of his allegations to the appropriate authority, but I shall refer his comments to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the excellent report published


on Monday by the Services Committee on access to the precincts of the House? Is he aware of the considerable anxiety on both sides of the House about the use and abuse of our facilities by lobbyists and researchers? Will he find time for a debate on the matter either during the overspill or early in the new Session?

Mr. Wakeham: It is an excellent report on a very important subject in which many hon. Members take a close interest. The report proposes that its recommenda-tions on photo-identity passes should be implemented at the beginning of the financial year 1989–90. I hope that it will be possible to arrange a debate in time to allow that to happen, should the recommendations be approved by the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made when the House returns after the summer recess about the anti-dumping application by the textile industry against the imports of Turkish acrylic yarn? Is he aware that this problem has caused the loss of nearly 600 jobs in the Bradford textile industry which the area and the economy can ill afford? The anti-dumping application should be pursued with vigour by the relevant Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry to encourage the EEC commissioners—about whom there has been so much fuss, but who are still in office—to do something about the anti-dumping application instead of the EEC trampling all over us, as it usually does.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says, except to agree that this is an important subject. I will see my right hon. Friend and, if a statement is appropriate, one will be made.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread interest and concern on both sides of the House about the provisions of the Democratic Oaths Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and supported by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and a substantial number of Labour Members, which seeks to abolish oaths of allegiance to the Crown and to substitute democratic oaths? Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this Bill in the next Session? It is quite possible that after the Labour party elections we will have a Labour Opposition who are no longer loyal but are opposed and antagonistic to the Crown.

Mr. Wakeham: In all friendliness to my hon. Friend, I must say that I have a list of Bills for which I am not prepared to find time for debate and the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers is pretty near the top of the list. If my hon. Friend believes that this is an important matter—as it is—and he wishes to bring it to the attention of the House, may I respectfully suggest that he finds another way of doing it.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Leader of the House observed the outbreak of a new illness among Members of Parliament, one of the symptoms of which we saw demonstrated by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker)—increased noisiness and yobbishness? Although the disease has yet to be classified by medical science, it goes under the name of PRT—pre-recess

tension. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that in the next Session we will work towards a more rational division of the parliamentary year for briefer Sessions and briefer recesses?

Mr. Wakeham: With regard to the question of absence through illness, it is a fine judgment for others to make about who seems to be suffering most at the present time. However, I realise that the parliamentary year is a serious matter. I like the recesses to be long and the Sessions to be short. I work very hard for that as best I can. If the hon. Gentleman will promise to help me, we may make better progress next year.

Mr. John Bowis: My right hon. Friend may be aware of the acute anxiety felt in the training world, particularly among those dealing with the disadvantaged and the disabled, at the allocation of training places and training supplements for the scheme coming into effect in September. Will he talk to his colleagues at the Department of Employment to ensure that that anxiety is resolved as soon as possible so that when we return in October a satisfactory statement to that effect may be made.?

Mr. Wakeham: That is an important matter. I understand that talks are going on, and I have no reason to believe that they will not be resolved satisfactorily.

Mr. Tony Marlow: May we have a very short debate on the valuable facility provided by Her Majesty's Foreign Office to right hon. and hon. Members about to travel overseas whereby they are briefed on the local circumstances and, particularly where these circumstances could be adverse, are advised how to react in a dignified way? Would it be possible during that debate to discover, although there might be security implications, whether that advice extends to every hon. Member, including even the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Wakeham: Advice to every hon. Member travelling abroad is available from the Foreign Office which, I know from personal experience, is as helpful as it can be in the circumstances. The fact that advice is issued does not mean that it is read or understood. Each hon. Member must decide how best to use the advice.

Mr. James Couchman: In the light of the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which is to take place in the autumn, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early full day debate, perhaps on the Adjournment of the House, on the subject of Northern Ireland? Such a debate would give us the opportunity to discuss the grotesque irresponsibility of Opposition Members, including the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, who has called for troops out. In the light of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told us this afternoon, a more inappropriate call cannot be imagined.

Mr. Wakeham: That is a very important subject and I should like to be able to organise a debate on it, but I do not immediately see the prospect of that in the near future.

Mr. Tony Favell: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the current interest in the possible introduction of a British photo-identity card. Eighty-four per cent. of the people taking part in a television poll voted in favour for such cards. As the Home Secretary is now


taking soundings among the police, may we expect a statement within the first few weeks of our return after the recess?

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said last week that they were not persuaded that a case had been made for a national identity card, but that the matter would obviously be kept under review. In my work as chairman of the committee on the misuse of alcohol, I can tell my hon. Friend that the committee believes that there is a case for a voluntary identity card to try to curb some of the worst excesses of under-age drinking, which is a problem that is causing us much concern.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) for assistance to improve the game of cricket in this country, bearing in mind the serious decline affecting children and their attitude to games and our present lack of success in international cricket. Will my right hon. Friend accept that what is not covered in the Education Reform Bill—for all that he said—is the real need to enshrine in the Bill the fact that cricket should be referred to by name in the Bill and that there should be proper cricket coaching for boys and perhaps girls? Does he believe that the Marylebone Cricket Club needs some assistance in choosing its team to represent the country? Could not the Government do something to assist Graeme Hick to be selected for England?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend tempts me into areas into which I should not stray, particularly as I was at school with Peter May. I had better not deal with his job as I have quite enough to cope with in my own. I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that competitive sport is an important part of a child's upbringing whether he is particularly good, only average or below average—as I was as a cricketer. I was rather better as a scorer than a batsman.

Second Severn Crossing

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement. I am now able to announce the next step in the provision of the second crossing of the River Severn.
The Severn bridge is important to Wales and to economic development on both sides of the estuary. That is why in July 1986 we announced that a second crossing would be built at the English Stones, and that preparatory and survey work would proceed with a view to providing that crossing in the mid-1990s if traffic levels showed it was needed by then. The Government have now decided to give the private sector a major opportunity to participate in the provision of this important project.
Essential geotechnical and hydrological surveys are being carried out urgently, and will be completed early next year. As soon as possible after that, I shall be publishing guidelines and inviting bids to build the new bridge. Promoters will be asked to submit proposals on two bases: to design and build the new bridge and to finance and operate it in conjunction with the existing bridge; or to design and build it with the Government responsible for funding and operation. In either case the costs will be recovered through tolls. Promoters will be asked to indicate possible completion dates and the toll levels associated with them. Whichever option is chosen, legislation will be needed to provide, amongst other things, for levying tolls.
We also need to take immediate steps to place the finances of the existing bridge on a sound footing. This is required to meet the objectives laid down when tolls were first introduced in 1966. The accumulated deficit of the bridge is now approaching £100 million. It is therefore proposed that the tolls on the existing bridge should be increased with effect from 1 September 1989 to £1 for cars and £2 for lorries. The present strengthening will have been completed before the new tolls are introduced.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There is only one item of substance in the Minister's statement, which is that the Severn bridge is important to Wales and to economic development on both sides of the estuary. The statement brings forward the completion of the bridge not one iota. There is no starting date, finishing date or target date. There is nothing except a hype for private industry. All the Minister has said is that he intends to ask private industry to submit bids as soon as practicable next year.
Will the Minister tell the House which solution he prefers? Does he prefer the wholly private sector solution? Does his statement mean that the new company, if there were to be one, would take over the running of the existing bridge too, and become an entirely private company, as is the case with the Dartford-Thurrock crossing? Why does he not take the most obvious and direct solution and have the bridge built with public money and by direct public tender, which he has the opportunity to do?
Secondly, is it not the case that his statement is an attempt to dampen down the anger that there will be on either side of the bridge about the doubling of the tolls, and the fact that he has now totally abandoned any possibility of free estuarial crossings? Tolls must be paid by people who need proper investment in their areas, but which they are not getting from the Government.

Mr. Channon: I am a little astonished by the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He speaks about abandoning free estuarial crossings, but it was his party when in office which introduced tolls on the bridge. The history of the Severn crossing is that the Labour party, when in office, has tolls, but when out of office says it will not. That is the standard against which we must judge the hon. Gentleman's remark.
My statement advances the building of a new crossing considerably. We are now asking for designs. We shall give the private sector the opportunity of participating in this important project next year on these two bases. They can come forward with suggestions for funding in the public or in the private sector. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell, when he made a statement a few years ago, made it perfectly clear that the public sector would proceed with a view to providing the crossing in the mid-1990s if traffic levels showed that it was needed. One of the potential advantages of the private sector is competition. Private promoters will be asked for a range of opening dates and associated tolls.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about my preference. I have none. I am happy to await the outcome of the competition, but anyone living in Wales or Severnside is likely to prefer the private sector solution.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend will not need me to tell him that the increase in charges will not be warmly welcomed. No matter how much of a saving the Severn bridge represents, there will always be a response of wanting something for nothing. The only appropriate consolation for this increase will be his firmest commitment that the second crossing will be in place by 1996 at the latest, because he will know as well as I that estimates of traffic volume across the Severn bridge have notoriously underestimated the problem.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I fully understand his worry about the existing tolls. However, the present tolls are lower in real terms than they were 20 years ago. Even after the increase, they will be lower than tolls on other estuarial crossings.
From what my hon. Friend said about the desirability of an early start and completion of this crossing, it sounds as though he will be one of the supporters of a private sector solution, because private promoters will be asked for a range of opening dates and, therefore, there may be the prospect of advancing the project much faster.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that his statement will be recognised throughout Wales as nothing more than a sprat to catch a mackerel? Does he appreciate that it is important that our main point in and out of Wales should not be handed over to private speculators? When will he recognise that tolls are nothing more than an abomination, especially when the Treasury is receiving no less than £16 billion from motor taxation, and only £3–6 billion of that is being spent on roads and maintenance?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also recognise the cost of delays in collecting tolls, which is an important commercial consideration? Will he reconsider the recommendation of the Select Committee on Transport which called for their abolition? Does he recognise that the basic figures for the existing bridge are a complete farce? The bridge cost £8 million to build, £52 million has been

collected in tolls, and there is now a debt of £100 million. Why should there be this additional tax on Wales, an area of such deprivation and mass unemployment?

Mr. Channon: Again, I find it astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should launch a strong attack on tolls across the Severn, when it was his own party that introduced them. It was his party that retained them when it had a second period in office. His party was in office from 1966 to 1970 and from 1974 to 1979, and it did nothing about the tolls, but now that it is out of office it complains. I hope that any reasonably minded person in Wales and Severnside will recognise that my announcement is an opportunity for the bridge to be completed earlier than it otherwise might have been. The promoters will be asked to gjve a range of opening times, and at the end of the day we shall see whether it is a private or public sector bridge.
The hon. Gentleman referred to private speculators. Of course, the private sector will build the bridge whichever solution is chosen, and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman is talking only about its financing. The private sector might provide a Severn crossing more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has said anything about access roads to the new crossing, but will he ensure that access roads are so designed as to provide for toll plazas of reasonable width? One of the main problems of the present bridge is its narrowness and the inevitable queues to the toll booth.

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has mentioned two extremely important points. Of course, we shall have to provide access roads in time for the completion of the new Severn crossing. That is a matter which is in hand and in which my Department is involved.
It will be important to make sure that the toll plazas do not cause delay. The advances in techniques used at the Dartford bridge have made it a far quicker operation, and I believe that by the time the Severn crossing is open there will be further advances.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not clear that the doubling of the tolls is the price that the people of Wales must pay to make this second bridge construction and financing attractive to the private sector? That is the motive behind the doubling of tolls. Is this not clear proof that, when it comes to the test, the Government will always give priority to privatisation and the ideological obsession of rolling back the frontiers of the state rather than the regional development needs of Wales?

Mr. Channon: No. The tolls were put on in the first place by the party which the hon. Gentleman supports. They have now to be increased, because we have had two reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General saying that the increase was long overdue. I am surprised that Opposition Members should disagree with the Comptroller and Auditor General's desire to see a proper economic situation prevail at this bridge as at other estuarial crossings.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about the second crossing—I am a frequent user of the Severn bridge—but can he explain why those who have to cross estuaries, alone of all people


who use trunk roads, have to pay for that privilege? Also, when will there be automatic tolls on the Severn bridge to speed up the crossing?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend will know that successive Governments of all political persuasions have taken the view that it is right to charge tolls on certain estuarial crossings. Next week, I shall go to the start of the new Dartford crossing, which will be financed by tolls and provide an extremely important service to travellers and the economy as a whole. The policy has been followed by successive Governments.
The House should realise that tolls on the Severn crossing have increased only twice since the bridge was opened 22 years ago in 1966. The increase that I have announced should be compared with the toll across the Humber, which is £1·50 for cars and £8 for lorries, and an increase is proposed.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Is the right hon. Gentleman's statement made with the full authority and consent of the Secretary of State for Wales? I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is here, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Secretary of State for Wales agrees with the main thrust of the statement, which is that the second crossing is to be financed by private funds? Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed with the Secretary of State for Wales how the programme for a second crossing fits into an integrated road network for Wales? I am sure that he appreciates that it must be viewed in the wider context of the development of east-west roads and the much needed north-south road.

Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have not necessarily decided to build with private financing. We shall have a competition to see whether there should be private sector financing or Government responsibility for funding. We shall see what comes forward and make a decision accordingly. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the provision of roads. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will examine carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is, of course, in agreement with the statement and the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales proves it.

Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will be welcome in my constituency and in Northavon as it puts a terminal date on the uncertainty about the southern link road, its route, its grade, and its relationship with the Avonmouth relief road? Would my right hon. Friend care to estimate the cost to the motorist or lorry driver of going around via Gloucester?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. I read with interest what he said when a similar statement was made a few years ago. It is difficult to estimate the cost of going around the estuary, but I should have thought that it would be infinitely greater than taking the crossing.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Secretary of State recognise that he has made one statement which he hopes will be eclipsed by another? There is to be an increase in tolls which is unpalatable to all parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to eclipse that

announcement with his re-announcement of a recommitment made two years and four days ago when the Secretary of State for Wales announced that there was to be a second Severn crossing.
Is it not true that the absence of the Secretary of State for Wales today is proof that Wales and its Secretary of State have received a bloody nose with this decision? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a great change of attitude towards tolls? Does he agree that the increase has nothing to do with the original cost of the bridge, which was £8 million? Tolls have gone up because of the Government's disgraceful neglect and the fact that the bridge has been shaken into premature senility by lorries which could have been controlled five or six years ago. The Government are culpable, and we are paying for their incompetence.

Mr. Channon: I am afraid that I do not agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said. I assure him that there is a need in any case to increase tolls on the Severn crossing, for the reasons that I have given. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General criticised the fact that tolls have not been increased. They have been increased only twice in 22 years. They were imposed by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in office. If it is so wrong to have tolls, why on earth did the Labour party impose them in the first place?
If the hon. Gentleman reads the statement which was made in 1986, he will see why I have made this statement. The former Secretary of State for Wales said that this is a major piece of infrastructure and that
The Department of Transport has the technical expertise, which clearly makes it appropriate for it to be the responsible Department."—[Official Report, 24 July 1986; Vol. 102, c. 612.]
As for giving my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales a bloody nose, since I was his Parliamentary Secretary in the early 1970s I have taken the view that it is much better not to fall out with him on anything, and nor have I on this.

Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that rapid completion of the second Severn crossing will be of great importance to Wales and the English side of the Bristol channel, given the rapid growth of the Welsh economy recently and the expectation that that will continue under the present Government? Is he aware that involvement of the private sector in this enterprise is greatly welcomed and may well be the harbinger of private sector involvement in future desirable infrastructure projects?

Mr. Channon: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, and agree with him.

Mr. Alun Michael: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the failure of the Secretary of State for Wales is reflected in his announcement because the Secretary of State would have had to declare it a "pay more" initiative? It is all initiatives from the Secretary of State for Wales. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that local authorities and industry in Wales have made great efforts to achieve economic recovery and that both have pleaded for the burden of the toll to be lightened because it is a tax on being Welsh, on doing business in Wales and on tourism in Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman think again?

Mr. Channon: I cannot agree. If it is such an awful thing to have tolls on estuarial crossings, perhaps it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman's party had not introduced them.

Mr. James Couchman: I am tempted, in view of today's news that the Severn bridge is to be closed for a couple of weekends soon, to ask whether that is a necessary step for having a second crossing, but that would be frivolous. As one who spent seven weeks serving on the Select Committee which considered the Dartford-Thurrock bridge, may I be assured that my right hon. Friend will do the most exhaustive studies into wind shielding before any Bill is committed to a Select Committee?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I certainly will. We are minded to have wind shielding on the bridge because winds on the Severn are thought to be considerably greater than those on the Thames.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Is the Secretary of State saying that there is a choice here between further increases in tolls and the quick erection of a new crossing using public funds, and waiting for a long time for a bridge if public funds are to be used? If the answer is yes, provided that the necessary toll increases are reasonable, from my end of the M4, the view is that, the sooner a second crossing is built, the better it will be. I hope that the Secretary of State can tell me whether I have summed up the situation correctly and whether we are likely to have a second crossing in the very near future so that there can be more inward investment in Wales. We must remember that 1992 is looming large.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the hon. Member, especially for the constructive way in which he asked his question. He is not quite right. There must be an increase in tolls whatever happens. As I have already said, the Comptroller and Auditor General has severely criticised the present regime. It is clearly necessary to bring tolls up to date. The hon. Gentleman may very well be right when he says that, if there is a private sector solution, that may result in a second Severn crossing being available more quickly.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend tell contractors who are submitting designs to bear in mind the fact that, by the time the new Severn crossing is constructed, approval may well have been given for the Severn barrage which will generate power by using the tides and have a road across the top of it? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the traffic that is likely to travel on that road before finalising designs for the second crossing?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I shall consider it carefully.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department made an in-depth study of the level of toll likely to be necessary on the new bridge if it is to be run by a private company? Does he have a view about what would be an acceptable toll if the bridge were built by a private company? As the new bridge would be in competition with the existing one, would the Government automatically increase their tolls to enable the private operators of the second bridge to make a profit? Does he agree that if the bridge is built entirely with

private money there will be no access to money from the European regional development fund? Under the rules of that fund, although the bridge is not in an assisted area, money could be forthcoming as it would assist considerably an assisted area—Wales—which is eligible for funding. Is this not a missed opportunity?

Mr. Channon: I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the European Investment Bank, which I am hoping to meet. I shall certainly examine the point in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. We must see what level of tolls is proposed, whether it is acceptable and whether a solution involving that comes from the private sector. [Interruption.] Let us decide that matter when we have more evidence. If there were a private sector solution the odds are that we would run the two crossings together, as is the case with Dartford, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) referred. That seems to have been widely accepted. All those considerations must be taken into account when a decision is finally taken. All that I am saying today is that here is another opportunity which will have to be considered carefully and it may well provide a quicker solution to the problem.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on accepting the need for a second connection between the south-west and south Wales and on seeking possibilities of encouraging private investment in such a scheme so that it does not impact so much on the rest of his road building programme. Does he accept that it makes the case for extending the principle to non-estuarial crossings and seeking more private investment to accelerate the road building programme? Will he press his colleagues in the Treasury to review what many of us on this side consider to be a somewhat eccentric interpretation of the Ryrie rules, so that this matter will encourage more money and speed up the road building programme?

Mr. Channon: I read with great interest my hon. Friend's article on that very point a few weeks ago. He will not expect me to comment on the Ryrie rules, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what he says about them. I am grateful for what he said about the possibilities. We shall have to see what is proposed, and at the end of the day Parliament must decide whether to build the crossing with the normal method of financing or with private finance.

Mr. Frank Cook: In considering the need to attract private capital and to keep toll charges as low as possible for consumers, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the amendment to early-day motion 1425 in the name of the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) which proposes
that consideration be given to the possibility of combining this second Severn Bridge with a hydro electricity generating scheme."?
Will he bear in mind the fact that in drawing the outline for the design of the bridge he can incorporate hydro-electric schemes which would bring in income and reduce the need for higher toll charges, which in turn could reduce both the most adverse, disadvantageous ecological effects that environmentalists dread from the Severn barrage and the need for more nuclear power? Will he take that into account and include it in the design specification?

Mr. Channon: I shall study with care all that the hon. Gentleman has said and all that my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) has said.

Mr. Michael Jack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time savings that will result from this bridge will be welcome and that the decision to press ahead with the new bridge is wholly justified in the light of the £56 million which has already been spent on maintenance of the existing bridge?

Mr. Channon: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and I agree in particular with his first point that the time savings will be welcome.

Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether the £1 level will be sufficient to pay the debt, or will we face ever-increasing tolls on the Severn bridge in future? Is there a difference in writing off the debt between the Humber bridge, the Mersey tunnel and the Severn bridge?

Mr. Channon: Each is a different case. As I have explained to the House, we have not yet written off anything. We are considering a proposal to write off a proportion of the Humber debt, which otherwise would be utterly unrealistic. I should like to receive firm proposals on Merseyside, and anything that my hon. Friend can do about that would be appreciated.
There is no doubt that there is a need now to increase the tolls on the Severn bridge. In real terms they are less than they were in 1966. If my hon. Friend is interested, I can give him a list of the tolls on other estuarial crossings, and he will find that some are higher than the Severn crossing toll. If I have not dealt fully with his point, I shall write to him.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am not astonished at the absence of the Secretary of State for Wales. Clearly he has been defeated in Cabinet on the issue of Government funding for the bridge. Will the Secretary of State confirm that today's statement does not commit the Government to one extra, single penny towards the construction of the bridge? He has put up a smokescreen behind which to announce a draconian doubling of the tolls on the bridge. There is no clear statement on dates for the completion of a bridge. Do we understand from his announcement that the decision on dates will be not according to traffic flows, but left to the whim of a private investor? That seems to be what he has been saying.
Will the Secretary of State note that in his statement he talks of
providing that crossing in the mid-1990s if traffic levels showed it was needed by then",
which is far less specific than the announcement yesterday in the Welsh Select Committee by the Secretary of State for Wales, who said that he expected it to be completed by the mid-1990s on current traffic flows? Who is right? Who is wrong? Does he agree unequivocally with that estimate by the Secretary of State for Wales?
What does the Secretary of State mean by saying that private investors may operate the bridge
in conjunction with the existing bridge"?

Does that mean privatisation of the existing bridge, or handing managerial control of the existing bridge to private operators? In either case, what has happened to the Government's commitment to competition as the best way of achieving results? Is this not the reverse, in that the Government are saying that we need a private monopoly of the two bridges to obtain the funds to build a bridge at an early date? Is it not a fact that, because of the need to make a profit on the second bridge if it is privately constructed and owned, he cannot allow low tariffs or tolls on the existing bridge, even at the levels he has announced today, because that would divert traffic from the new private bridge to the existing bridge?
As the new bridge is crucially needed for Wales, as the Secretary of State said, as part of our regional policy to help Welsh industry develop, and as, by the time the bridge is completed, if it is, the Government will have robbed Wales of £1 billion in regional aid, why will not the Minister undertake to provide Government funds for the bridge and give us some of our money back?

Mr. Channon: I am absolutely astonished at the grudging way that the right hon. Gentleman greets this announcement. I am surprised because, before he slarted to speak on Welsh affairs, he used to be reasonable I do not know what has happened to him in recent months— and, incidentally, nor does his hon. Friend, who is not present.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's irnportant point, my right hon. Friends have made it perfectly clear about public sector financing of this bridge. They will "proceed with a view to providing that crossing in the mid-1990s if traflic levels showcd it was needcd by then." If the bridge goes ahead in the public sector, that was, is and will remain the case. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it will depend on traffic levels. If the bridge goes ahead in the private sector, which it may or may not do depending on whether private sector competition shows that that is the better solution, it will be open to promoters to propose schemes which will provide, conceivably, for an earlier opening of the crossing. I should have thought that that would be welcome to people in Wales and on Severnside. If that is an insuperable objection to involving the private sector, it is someting to be debated at the time. Let us see what comes forward. Running the new bridge in conjunction with the existing crossing seems likely to prove extremely satisfactory for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing and I see no reason at this stage why it should not prove satisfactory for the Severn crossing. We are not at that stage yet, so we must wait to see what develops.
The important point is that I have announced today a major opportunity to create the bridge. As soon as the geological and hydrological surveys are completed, we shall have a design and build competition for the new bridge. It makes much more likely the provision of a second Severn crossing in the mid-1990s. That is a substantial step forward, and I am utterly amazed that the Opposition should respond to the announcement in their typically grudging and mean-spirited way.

BILLS PRESENTED

Hearing aid council 1968 (Amendment)

Mr. Jack Ashley, supported by Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Alfred Morris, Miss Emma Nicholson and Mr. Roger Sims, presented a Bill to amend the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

CONTROL OF INTERCEPTION

Mr. Bob Cryer, supported by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Ron Brown, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. Bill Michie, presented a Bill to further control electronic interceptions, eavesdroppings and telephone interceptions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 19 October and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 29th July, do adjourn until Wednesday 19th October, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 29th July until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Durant.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Alfred Morris: It must have been the expectation of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House that, in a Session that commenced over 12 months ago, there would have been less unfinished Government business this July than in previous years. The backlog is, of course, a tribute to the Government's critics on both sides of the House and in all parts of another place. Of course, we all know that the last edition of Hansard before the recess will be fat with written replies to ministerially inspired questions, which the Government have been too shy, or too fly, to give while the House is still here to hold them to account.
The issue that I want briefly to raise, as the Leader of the House may have anticipated, is one of the first importance to millions of disabled people and their families; and at the outset I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman is not unfamiliar with some of the more daunting trials of disability.
My concern in this debate is about information that Ministers have now withheld from Parliament for over two months and which, on present plans, will not be published even tomorrow. By any reckoning, it must be totally unpardonable for the Government to scuttle into the recess without a debate on the long-awaited results— known to have been with Ministers since May—of a new and definitive survey of Britain's disabled population by the Office of Population Censuses, and Surveys. It is, by common consent outside this House, quite disgraceful that we have been unable to debate the OPCS's findings and have not even been told officially what they are.
Rumours abound that the results fully vindicate the charge, long made by voluntary organisations, that Whitehall has been grossly understating both the number of disabled people and the scale of deprivation among them. Nor is there simply rumour. "Whitehall sources" who have seen the OPCS's findings say that they show there are now more than 6 million people with disabilities in the United Kingdom, large numbers of them pensioners who live in poverty.
That is double the figure given by the Amelia Harris report, commissioned by the then Labour Government 20 years ago, and Whitehall sources are said to have told parliamentary journalists that the new findings are seen as "disastrous" by Ministers in their implications for public spending.
We never truly knew what the numbers were until now",
one senior journalist has been told,
but we do now and there's no going back.
His source went on:
We now know who these people are. We almost know their names.
The OPCS's report is said to give special emphasis to the problems facing elderly people with severe disabilities,


who are excluded from the Government's official estimates of losers from this year's social security changes. Many of them suffer multiple deprivation and the Government are said to be delaying publication of the new survey's findings in an attempt to find ways of disguising their significance. They are in no doubt that, if Ministers had published the OPCS's findings when they first became available in May, the public would already have demanded urgent action to relieve the suffering they reveal.
The Government's only recent initiative to help people with severe disabilities has been to set up the Independent Living Fund at a cost of £5 million. That was done a full two months after the Social Security Act 1986 came into force and two years after the Government had been told unequivocally what its effects would be for severely disabled people, old and young alike, striving to sustain their independence on inadequate incomes. They are people whose claim, and compelling need, was for benefits as of right.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the important point that he is making, it is astonishing that we are almost at the end of the second Session of Parliament after the Royal Assent was given to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act in 1986, yet the Government still do not have proposals for its full implementation? The fact that the Government have dealt so inadequately with the Griffiths report suggests that— alas—these matters are not given the priority that my right hon. Friend would have given them.

Mr. Morris: I utterly agree. Moreover, I take this opportunity to pay further tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for his work in piloting that important piece of legislation to the statute book. He has support from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and it is grossly unacceptable that there should still be delay in implementing legislation of such importance to disabled people, their carers and their families.
The Independent Living Fund is a sticking plaster if ever there was one and, unless there is rapid action to translate the OPCS's data into social security benefits and the report by Sir Roy Griffiths into a coherent policy for community care, more and more disabled people will be consigned to the fringes of society. Sadly the OPCS's findings are already outdated by the punitive effects of the Social Security Act for very large numbers of the most needful disabled people and their families.
The Amelia Harris survey in the late 1960s, now reported to be extensively revised by the new OPCS report, found that two thirds of all people with an appreciable or severe disability were over pension age. On that basis, of the new figure of 6 million there must now be some 4 million disabled pensioners. Yet the Government's estimate of disabled losers from this year's social security changes left out disabled pensioners, as well as disabled children and people with disabilities who are unemployed. That is why the Government's estimate of 80,000 disabled losers so sharply contrasts with that of around 1 million made by the Disability Alliance, which represents over 100 voluntary organisations of and for disabled people.
When the Secretary of State for Employment, then the Secretary of State for Social Services, commissioned the OPCS's survey, the impression was given that the incomes

of disabled people would be protected until its findings became known and a full review of current benefits had taken place. Whenever MPs pressed for improvements in benefits they were told to await the OPCS's findings, while the Government perfected their plans to make some 1 million disabled people worse off last April.
In a recent letter to the then Minister for Social Security and the Disabled, the Disability Alliance wrote:
We believe that the proposed publication of the OPCS's survey in September, in a manner apparently designed to stifle public debate, is demeaning to millions of people with disabilities. We urge you most strongly to make the survey's results available immediately so that they can be fully discussed before Parliament goes into Recess.
But the Government are packing us off tomorrow having resisted every parliamentary attempt to secure publication of a social document which, if it appears in September, will no doubt do so under the guidance of "news management" specialists of the highest skill.
That is seen outside the House as an inexcusable case of deliberately avoiding parliamentary scrutiny and debate. Many will think it demeaning and contemptuous not only of disabled people but also of Parliament itself. If the Government still refuse at least to publish the findings they received from the OPCS in May—there is still time to do so before we rise for the summer recess—we must hope that news editors, now forewarned, will prove more than a match for the "news managers" when the OPCS's disturbing revelations finally see the full light of day.
It is no exaggeration to say that people with disabilities have been thrown into more confusion and despair by the Government's legislative programme for this Session than I can remember for 20 years. In almost every policy area, the Government either ignore them or positively harm them. As the Leader of the House knows from our debate on 20 July, there is deep concern among disabled people about the poll tax. In education, representations in both Houses on behalf of children with special educational needs have been swept aside; in housing, Shelter has reported both that the number of new houses built by local authorities and housing associations has declined and that most of the housing stock suitable for adaptation has been lost to local authorities; in the inner cities programme, the access needs of disabled people are apparently being left to chance.
Throughout the last Parliament, the Government seemed committed to driving people into residential care by ensuring that the money available from supplementary benefit was vastly greater in private residential homes than for disabled people living in their own homes. So towards the end of 1986, Sir Roy Griffiths was asked to investigate and to recommend a solution.
At least the Government have published the Griffiths report but, unlike others by the same author, it is gathering dust because its findings and suggestions do not fit in with the prevailing ideology of bashing local authorities. That too is indefensible and we need to know the Government's response to the Griffiths report before the House rises tomorrow.
The argument about the deeply harmful effects of the Government's legislative programme for disabled people is not only one between Ministers and the Opposition parties in this House. It is an argument, indeed a fierce clash, between the Government and all the major voluntary organisations of and for disabled people. They deserve a definitive response to the concerns they are expressing, before this House rises for the recess tomorrow.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in the subject that he knows so well and on which he speaks with such great authority. However, I am equally concerned about the public scrutiny of decisions of great importance and relevance to public policy. I wish to refer to two in particular which I think we should know more about. I refer first to the decision not to fund in full, or at least on the previous scale, the fast breeder reactor development in the United Kingdom and, secondly, to the decision effectively to cancel the extremely ingenious and promising British technological development known as HOTOL, the spacecraft which will apply new British technology to the conquest of space.
The relationship between the two projects will interest the House. In a sense, both have been either curtailed or placed on the slow burner for very much the same reason. In the case of the fast breeder reactor, the Government's reason is that they can see no particular requirement for the fast breeder reactor for 30 to 40 years. In the case of HOTOL, the main reason given was that there was no foreseeable market requirement for space launchers well beyond the end of the century. I believe that the phrase was "no foreseeable need".
Why are those two decisions important? I am raising the question of the fast breeder reactor this afternoon not because I am well known as a pro-nuclear buff, although I believe that the nuclear contribution to our civilisation in the civil sector is of immense importance, that it will grow in importance and that it is indispensable—I am raising this issue for a much more basic reason.
I refer the House to the international conference which took place in Toronto two or three weeks ago on the crisis of atmospheric pollution in our civilisation. I draw the House's attention to one of the principal conclusions reached by that conference:
Humanity is conducting an enormous, unintended, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war.
The conference warned:
without rapid remedial action, the world's temperature will rise by between 1·5 and 4·5 °C before the middle of the next century.… That would devastate coastal areas and islands by flooding, contamination of water supplies by salty waters, loss of farmland, and a dramatic increase in the number of tropical cyclones.
I will not develop that point further, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to some of the conclusions which the scientific journal Atomhas reached on very much the same subject. It has pointed out that there are two consequences of what is happening, one of which is already accepted because we could not possibly stop it—it will probably inevitably take place over 10 to 20 years; the other is possibly within the limits of control, but both have substantial and devastating effects on the atmosphere. The article points out:
A warming of 4·9 °C would be comparable to that which occurred between the coldest period of the last ice age 18,000 years ago and the present interglacial—all within the next 100 years! … in a mere 42 years, the world would be warmer, on average, than at any time within the recorded history of mankind … It is therefore crucial that science receives the support it requires to sharpen our understanding of the greenhouse effect"—
for that is what the phenomenon is—
and its potential impacts on environment and society. The longer we wait, the larger will be the climatic change to which we are committed.

In what way can we contribute to that scientific understanding? As I understand it, the main way is by enlarging the present generation's scientific knowledge of the atmosphere, and of inner and outer space. In what way do we do that? We do it best by increasing our potential for placing scientific instruments in space. How can we best do that? By developing what are known as spacecraft—and the most eligible spacecraft available to the United Kingdom is HOTOL. So, where do we go from there? What judgment has been reached on HOTOL?
I can do no better—the House can do no better—than refer to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, and to some of its principal conclusions on space, which I believe are of outstanding importance. The Committee took evidence from the director general of the space agency in France, who reached an interesting, if Gallic conclusion, which is nevertheless relevant. For France,
man in space … was simply a matter of sovereignty, 'like the sea around the United Kingdom'",
and therefore seen as a matter of immense and overriding importance.
British Aerospace, in its evidence to the Select Committee, said:
Between now and the end of the century there will be a dramatic acceleration in space exploitation in line with the growing realisation by the civil and military communities of the substantial benefits that it offers".
The judgment of British Aerospace should not be lightly overridden, however biased or interested it may be. Another example is the recent decision of a major United States firm voluntarily and on its own account to reinstate the Atlas-Centaur production line to produce launch vehicles for commercial availability.
Other interesting and important conclusions of the House of Lords Select Committee include the following from the university of Southampton:
Few of the potential benefits from space activities will be fully realised until a routine, low cost, re-usable launcher with simplified logistics is developed.
The United Kingdom Industrial Space Committee regarded this as an "over-riding priority", and British Aerospace stated:
Many people believe that space is the key to national security and economic well-being. But the key to space itself is the launcher.
Superficial and rather glib comparisons have been made with Concorde, but the university of Bristol makes the following comment:
Unlike Concorde, there seems to be every prospect of a genuine economic return because the basic cost of launch is massively reduced.
The House of Lords Committee itself then makes the interesting statement:
Opting out is not an option … The Committee recommend that the United Kingdom play a visible and effective part in the exploration and exploitation of space.
At this point, the following recommendations fully serve my purpose. The Select Committee states:
keeping the space budget fixed at about £112 million, has got the level wrong. This level of spending gets the worst of all worlds—too much for real savings, too little for lasting achievements. If the budget is to stay at this figure, the United Kingdom might as well bow out of space now.
It concludes:
the Committee do not find it reasonable to suggest that it is for private industry to step in where Government itself has declined to act. The Committee have argued repeatedly that British industry should spend substantially more on R &amp; D, especially on D. They have also welcomed the systematic


efforts now being made to capitalise upon exploitable areas of science. But they do not look to private industry, in space or any other field"—
and nor, for all my political philosophy, do I in this context, because it is totally unrealistic—
to be the major source of funds for activities where the commercial returns, even if they were assured, lie well outside normal commercial timescales.
The word "timescales" brings me to the essence of what I have to say. I say it with the greatest reluctance, but it seems to me that in both these contexts the Government's policy is unimaginative, short-sighted and dangerous when considered in the fundamental context of the national interest. I ask myself, because I must, why that is so. Why have we spent only three hours in the past year or so debating fundamental scientific policy matters of this kind? Why do highly responsible and senior Ministers, whom I greatly respect in every other sense and who have before them the evidence that I have cited today, reach the decisions that they do? Can it be purely a matter of finance? Is it because they see a figure such as £5 billion and react—understandably, after the long history of uncontrollable subsidy—by saying that we must have no more of this? I entirely agree with that judgment, but there are areas in which the time scale is so long that it is entirely unreasonable to expect the private sector to undertake the risks inevitably involved. That is where a mistaken judgment has been made.
A sum of £5 billion is the kind of amount that has been bandied about in relation to HOTOL, but it is £5 billion over 10 to 20 years, and thus involves a maximum of £500 million or a minimum of £250 million per annum. Even then, I agree with the House of Lords judgment that this must be shared with Europe as a whole, because it is a project best brought to fruition on a European basis, with a major British contribution, but I cannot see such a contribution being based on the present arrangements or the judgments on which they are founded.
Those sums should be compared with the £2 billion per annum allocated by the Government for subsidy to the coal industry and other global budgets of that magnitude. In that context, £250 million does not frighten me. We must look critically at the balance of all these matters and if it means a little more stringency elsewhere, I would support such stringency so that resources can be released for major efforts in this direction.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Apart from blindess and apparent ignorance, is not the problem the lack of any forum in this House such as the old Select Committee on Science and Technology whereby my hon. Friend and others with great expertise in these matters can bring that expertise to bear and enlighten and advise Ministers? Does my hon. Friend agree that the HOTOL project required only £4 million to £5 million per annum for the next three or four years until project definition was completed? If that had been successful, more would then have had to be spent for development. Nevertheless, we are talking about tiny sums compared with the £50,000 million per annum that we spend on social security.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both points. This House is enormously indebted to the other place for taking up the gauntlet that we flung down and establishing its own Select Committee on Science and Technology. We have certainly missed the contribution that such a Committee could make. The establishment of

a parliamentary office for science and technology may in due course make a modest contribution, but it is no substitute for a House of Commons Select Committee.
To my mind, the situation reflects a fundamental weakness in the organisation of the whole scientific community within the total community of the United Kingdom. When I say that that is a criticism of my party's Government, I hope that the Opposition will not gloat, as they made the same mistake. That failing has been a feature of both major parties throughout all the years that I have been in the House, and it will not be put right until the lack of balance is properly recognised at the very top. So far, it has not been recognised and there is no sign that it will be.
I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to urge his colleagues to consider most carefully not just what I have said today but the evidence on which my comments have been based. That evidence is of profound importance, and I have seen no convincing arguments to refute it. Until I hear or read these arguments, I cannot support my right hon Friends in their decision to curtail the development of the fast breeder reactor or to reduce substantially—virtually to abolish—support for HOTOL.
If the greenhouse effect which I have described proves to be a major environmental phenomenon that successive Governments will have to address towards and beyond the end of the century, and if as a result—this is conceivable, although not yet proven—there has to be a dramatic and major reduction in the burning of coal and other fossil fuels, there will be only one alternative. By "major reduction" I mean thousands of millions of tonnes. All the fashionable alternative energies will not bridge the gap that will be opened when it is ordered that thousands of millions of tonnes of fossil fuels will not be burned. At the most, the fashionable alternative energies will produce 20 per cent. of our energy requirement. There would remain, of course, 80 per cent. If we have to reduce 80 per cent. to 40 per cent., the gap, as it were, of 40 per cent. can be filled only by nuclear power.
Will the gap have to be filled by nuclear power worldwide? I remind the House that the Chinese are now burning 1 billion tonnes of coal a year. Indeed, they take first place in the worldwide league table of coal burners. If nuclear power has to be generated on such a scale, it can be done with safety for our civilisation over a prolonged period only if we use fast breeder technology, which burns uranium 10 times more efficiently than the pressurised water reactor.
These are the perspectives that I believe the Government have neglected. If they have not, I should be delighted to know why and how.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is always a pleasure to participate in a debate after the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) have contributed to it. The hon. Member for Havant, in speaking of science and technology, and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, in talking of disability, have raised important and urgent aspects of public policy. They are right to argue that the Government should bend their mind to these considerations before the House rises for the summer recess.
I crave the indulgence of the House to raise a more human, more urgent and more current issue, which is the conditions that prevail in the prisons of the United Kingdom generally and particularly, because it is the area that I know best, in Scotland. I am not sure of the proprieties, but it occurs to me that I have not yet advised the hon. Member who represents the constituency in which Glenochil prison is to be found——

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I should sit down.

Mr. Kirkwood: Perhaps it is right that I should do so. If I should have informed the hon. Member concerned —I want to refer to Glenochil—I apologise in advance to whoever it might be.
There is deep and widespread anxiety in Scotland about what is going on in Glenochil. The general public are perplexed. Trouble is brewing, and I believe that it will continue to brew over the summer months. That belief is shared generally by the public in Scotland. If some of the worst predictions and fears are fulfilled, we may find that during the summer additional damage will be done to the fabric of the prison building. There is the danger that injuries will be sustained by prisoners, prison staff and the officers and wardens who look after the staff. The disturbances could easily get out of hand. There is a potential crisis in Scottish prisons generally, and in Glenochil especially.
Glenochil has been the subject of great controversy over recent years because of fatalities and other incidents. The prison authorities in Scotland decided to make Glenochil a full-blown prison in its own right earlier this year. A riot started on 4 May, which lasted on and off for nearly five days. Since then there has been what can be described only as a war of attrition between the prison management and the prisoners. My information comes from press reports. It is only through these reports that I and the general public can learn of anything that is going on in the prison.
Press reports suggest that the riot was caused by a lock-down after an assault on a prison warden. Following that assault, every prisoner was locked up and all visits were cancelled. An open day was allowed, and press reports suggest that it showed a great sense of hopelessness. There were allegations of brutality and of continuing and persistent degradation. The authorities allowed the open day to take place, but when the members of the press asked to cross-examine some of the inmates who were involved in the original fracas which caused the riots, they were told that they were not available. If prisoners are locked up for 23 hours out of every 24, I fail to see how inmates can be described as not available.
There are more than 400 prisoners, and they have in various ways made allegations. These include having to strip naked before they are fed. It is said that they have to hang from cell bars before they receive their food. The prisoners are locked up for 23 hours of every 24. They have no toilet facilities and none of them has any bedding facilities. If my memory serves me right, a 27 -year-old hanged himself in the prison in June.
The press reports and the other pieces of information that are available to me are extremely disturbing and worrying. The management say that the trouble has been

caused by a hard core of difficult and intractable recidivist prisoners who are not responding to reasonable attempts to compromise. It is alleged that they are leading a revolt and are responsible primarily for the trouble.
I was prompted to raise this issue this afternoon when I read a letter printed in the Glasgow Herald. It caused me a great deal of deep concern. The letter was written by Stephen Small from Her Majesty's prison, Peterhead. He explains in his letter—I think that the Glasgow Herald was right to publish it—that he was a prisoner in Glenochil until recently. He was there until he committed an offence, after which he was taken to Peterhead so that the matter could be investigated.
In a disturbing letter, he states:
There were a few minor incidents between Christmas and May. Then on May 4, at 4.30 pm in D hall, an officer offered a prisoner a 'square go during an argument. The prisoner overcame the officer but was then attacked by another officer. The fuse was lit.
There was a very heavy Mexican stand-off and everyone was locked up until the police came in to take statements, which they did that night. We were told we would be locked up that night and told the reason.
There was no trouble that night. The following day everyone was expecting to get back to normal. We didn't. We got no slop-out, no exercise, no visits and late, cold meals. By teatime, people started smashing their cells. We weren't told anything about what was happening. The following day things got worse. Again, no slop-out or exercise or visits or hot food. The whole prison erupted.
This prisoner argues that there was
no small core of hard men. Instead, there were 200 very disgruntled inmates who had up to that time done absolutely nothing wrong.
His conclusion is:
The reason it has continued so long"—
that is, the riot—
is that the Governor … has taken it upon himself to ride roughshod over the regulations contained in the Prison Scotland Act 1952. No less than 25 regulations are being broken … every day.
That contradicts and refutes the allegation that a small hard core of difficult prisoners is causing the problem.
I do not blame the warders or the staff, however. I think that the filthy conditions are a direct result of the prisoners' activity. Prison officers can now patrol A hall only in full riot gear, and live in constant fear of being taken hostage. According to the press reports, they are pelted with urine and human excrement every time they enter A hall, and there have been three reported attempts at snatching officers and 12 alleged assaults.
There has been much talk of prison management breaking prisoners, or trying to bend them to their will. If the press allegations are true—they are the only information available to me; I have not visited the prison, and am not even an expert on the penal system—the management must be held at least partly responsible. I certainly think that there can be little excuse for denying prisoners slop-out rights for so long, and for denying them exercise rights for a total of 432 hours since the problem blew up in May.
I should like to call for an urgent independent inquiry, into Glenochil in the first instance but also into the general position, taken against the background of the recent difficulties and disturbances in Peterhead, Barlinnie and Perth in Scotland, not to mention Haverigg and Lindholme in England. This is a matter of public concern which requires urgent attention from the Government if we are to avoid trouble over the summer months.
My constituents, and other people in Scotland, are concerned to see in television sequences drugs being handed from cell to cell by inmates. It is also worrying that warders and staff are taking such long spells of sick leave. That, I believe, is symptomatic of the pressure under which they are working. It is also a disgrace and a scandal that some 5,588 prisoners are locked up in Scotland, which is a much larger proportion per thousand head of population than in any other civilised country on the continent.
The problem needs both urgent short-term action and longer-term investigation. There are long-term solutions to be found without much difficulty, including better access to parole. Only violent criminals really need to be gaoled. Far too many people are now in prison for defaulting on fines, for instance, and the number on remand—although the problem is worse in England and Wales than in Scotland—is also far too large. I was impressed by the recent report by the Church of Scotland, which advocated a wide range of non-custodial options. A number of other regimes are available to the Government, and could be made available in turn to the courts to accommodate and lessen the problem. The report also mentioned the probation service, which is woefully underdeveloped and under-resourced at present.
We were expecting a Government White Paper about the prison service with reference to Scotland. It should have been published by now, but the most recent news is that we must wait until September for this important document. Nor has the parole review yet been published which was to examine the Scottish position with a view to bringing the qualifying period for parole in Scotland into line with that in England. That too should be done as a matter of urgency.
There is a legal fiction in this country that we imprison people not for purposes of retribution, but to try to rehabilitate them. That has been blown out of the water by the disturbances that we see from day to day in our prisons, particularly in Scotland. Of course no hon. Member would or should condone violence or vandalism in prisons. It is a matter for the courts in the first instance to decide how crimes should be punished and dispose sentences. The Government, however, have a responsibility to provide public policy, resources and organisation to meet the needs of the day, and I do not think that that duty is being discharged.
The Government should immediately close A hall in Glenochil and relocate the prisoners until the problem can be investigated by an independent inquiry. They should then set up a wide-ranging inquiry into the state of the prisons in the United Kingdom. If they do not do that over the summer, I fear that the consequences may be not just more damage to the fabric of our prisons, but injury and loss of life to prison inmates, warders and staff.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall be a good deal briefer than any hon. Member who has spoken so far.
There is a matter that I would have wished to raise if the House had not been about to disperse, and which may develop rather too swiftly during the recess. The "bed and breakfast" racket has been with us for some time now, but there is an ingredient which, if not new, is becoming increasingly prominent.
The seaside resort of Rhyl in my constituency is a very pleasant place to be. For a long time now, the advantages of being unemployed in Rhyl rather than in Manchester or Liverpool have been sufficiently manifest to attract to Rhyl people with little chance of finding a proper job there, other than the briefest of seasonal employment at. the most down-market end of the tourist trade. As a consequence, the level of unemployment there appears to be scandalously high for about nine months in the year.
Now, however, the nuisance is becoming something rather worse. A number of rather dubious firms have begun to realise that a steady and lucrative business can be built up not just by providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation for those with no job and nowhere to live, but by attracting people to such accommodation from far afield. What is more, the profits are so substantial and so certain that the firms are now in the market to buy up property for that purpose.
The profits are substantial because the scale of lodging allowance paid by the DHSS for this so-called hostel accommodation is higher than the level of housing benefit that would be paid by the council—which would, of course, have asked the rent officer to fix a reasonable rent. Such firms are making a fat and assured profit, and they are making it entirely at the taxpayers' expense.
Recently, the YMCA building in Rhyl came on the market. The council, in pursuance of the Government's intention that it should act as enabler rather than provider of housing, invited the Clwyd Alyn housing association to buy it, and to convert it to sheltered housing as part of the much-needed housing improvement in this rather rundown part of the town. The housing association, however, was easily outbid by a speculator, who then resold the YMCA premises to a company called Bideawhile, which has converted it into what it openly describes as a DHSS hostel.
Let me quote from a letter that I have received from Rhuddlan council's housing director:
If this property was providing for a local need, then, no doubt, we would not have the same concern, but it would appear that the premises are filling up with families who are being encouraged to move here from other areas by press advertisements. The Area Office of the Clwyd Social Service Department is particularly concerned at the increasing workload that is being placed upon them, as already they have been consulted by 13 famities who arrived at the former YMCA building, and have subsequently approached the Social Service Department with their problems, and some of these families are already known to have serious problems. Examples of places from where they have come include Trafford, Salford, Halifax, Winsford, Preston and Blackpool. As a result of contact with Social Service staff in their home towns, it is known that a family from Trafford and a family from Halifax both voluntarily walked out of secure Council housing accommodation in those areas to move to this new accommodation in Rhyl.
The following example of a press advertisement was spotted in the Manchester Evening News on the 22nd June, 1988 and read as follows:—
'SINGLE MOTHERS/PARENTS and children. Secure accommodation offered. DHSS welcome. Telephone Rhyl 4201 (Office Hours).'
That is the number of the YMCA building in Rhyl.
The housing director continues:
I have had discussion with the Deputy Manager of DHSS in Rhyl who advised that they have no power to prevent this type of situation arising or increasing. He advised that provided his staff were satisfied the claimants were genuinely in residence in this type of accommodation and were not here on holiday, then the claimants were entitled to board and


lodging payments, up to the maximum set down in DHSS regulations … The only limitation on payments of this nature would be to single persons under the age of 26.
That process is also damaging the efforts of the council and others to improve the West End of Rhyl, which is a rundown housing area.
As the housing director puts it:
Rhyl West End is considered a stress area by Community Agencies as a result of the high levels of unemployment … anti-social behaviour, drugs and a general high demand being made upon various agencies, particularly Social Services. It has also been our housing stress area … with the high concentration of houses in multiple occupation. In a determined effort to reverse the decline of the Rhyl West End, the Council has adopted a housing strategy involving the declaration of Housing Action Areas, and with the support of the Welsh Office has either completed, or work is in progress on, six Envelope Schemes involving some 250 properties.
All that good work is liable to be undone if more and more properties in the area are snapped up by unscrupulous operators who will then scour the country for problem families with the promise of seaside accommodation paid for by the DHSS, and pour them into this most unsuitable accommodation, lining their pockets nicely at the taxpayers' expense.
It is easy to diagnose the problem; it is a lot harder to suggest a solution. There is an obvious racket, and an obvious discrepancy between the money that can be provided by way of housing benefit and what the DHSS can pay for bed and breakfast—and it is usually the sketchiest of breakfasts.
One thing is clear. This is a problem which calls for the tightest possible co-operation between the Department of Social Security, the Department of the Environment and the local authorities. I am not sure that the present arrangements have resulted from such tight co-operation, and I hope that during the 10 weeks of the recess those Departments and local authorities will put their heads together to good effect.

Mr. Alun Michael: I want to touch on another housing scandal, which also results directly from the Government's policies and shows the unacceptable face of the so-called enterprise economy. I want to challenge the Government on a matter of vital and urgent importance to millions of people which is given fresh impetus and urgency by the Prime Minister's shocking and uncaring reply in the House this afternoon.
The Prime Minister was asked about problems with house prices and she said that that should be left to action by the voluntary sector. The Leader of the House said the same. They meant that they do not care and will not act. I warn the Prime Minister and other Ministers that they cannot sweep aside the scandals of gazumping and the house price spiral so easily. Many right hon. and hon. Members have demonstrated that by signing early-day motion 1311 tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) a couple of weeks ago. Many people outside the House applauded its terms. Let me briefly remind the House of what it says.
The motion suggests that we should regard a decent standard of housing for all as a minimum objective in a civilised society, and notes the appalling effects of the present spiral in house prices, particularly on young couples and other first-time buyers. It deplores the way in

which gazumping can, at the last minute, snatch security from people who thought that they had reached agreement on a price for a home of their own. It calls on the Government to introduce emergency legislation for England and Wales, including the Scottish system for registering price agreements, at an early stage in order to achieve fairness for buyers and sellers alike, and to curb the excesses created by the pressures of the present over-free housing market. We hoped that that gentle appeal to common sense might receive a response from the Government, or perhaps a promise of emergency legislation, or at least a statement.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any such legislation should also apply to Northern Ireland, because exactly the same thing is happening there?

Mr. Michael: I hesitate to suggest that something should be introduced for Northern Ireland, but I would happily endorse representations from Northern Ireland Members who sought the same end that I do in respect of England and Wales. There is a clear need for emergency legislation, and if the situation is the same in Northern Ireland I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support my point this afternoon.
We expected some action from the Government— perhaps a promise of emergency legislation. After all, many hon. Members have illustrated the problem. We expected at least a statement, but at first there was nothing. Then, the weekend before last, it seemed that the Government had decided to respond to our plea and to do something. In a number of television and radio interviews, we saw and heard the then Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs talking of action to end gazumping and the house price spiral.
What a welcome and refreshing piece of news that was. The Minister specifically mentioned gazumping and the Scottish law, so we were pleased to have some reaction. We were a little perturbed at the suggestion that a voluntary code of practice for estate agents was all that was needed, but at least there seemed to be something on which we could comment; something on which a debate could be founded.
However, when we asked for details the following week, a mystery seemed to shroud the whole affair. There was no statement in the House of Commons. No consultative document was produced. There was not even a press release, although, as I have said, there was media discussion. When I contacted the Minister's private office, his staff could give no information.
Therefore, I tabled a series of written questions to Minister's from the Department of Trade and Industry asking for details of the proposals on which they intended to consult. The reaction has been simply to deflect those questions to the Attorney-General, the Secretary of State for the Environment, or whoever they could think of, exposing the fact that there was never any intention to tackle the problem of the house price spiral. There are no proposals. The announcement of consultations was clearly a sham and a piece of media hype. Instead, we have a shoddy case of buck-passing.
In my string of questions came the honesty of an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. When I asked what proposals he had under consideration to end


the practice known as gazumping in Wales and to slow house price rises, and what consultations he intended to undertake, he answered:
I do not consider that Government intervention in the market for owner-occupation would improve the situation.
To say that that is an honest answer is to highlight its only virtue. Like the answers given by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House this afternoon, it exposes the Government's callous indifference to a real problem. It exposes the Government's intention to run away from the scandal of house prices. It exposes the cynicism of a Government who want to look as if they are listening when they have in fact closed their minds to all pleas.
The Attorney-General and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment have also given stonewalling responses which confirm that from the Welsh Office. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) told my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling):
House prices are determined by individual buyers and sellers, and the Government do not propose to intervene in private negotiations."—[Official Report,4 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 725.]
What an appalling and heartless response that is. Anyone—that must include most hon. Members—who has sought a first home or to move house will know that that is a traumatic and difficult process, governed by forces far outside the control of the individual buyer or the individual seller. Those answers expose the narrowness and bigotry of Ministers. The media hype of the Department of Trade and Industry appeared to offer care and humanity for a brief moment, but even that is being snatched away from us. Let me make it clear that, in his non-statement, the Minister was offering us very litfle in the first place. To suggest that a voluntary code for estate agents would solve the problem is manifest nonsense.
Rather than inaction or a voluntary code, the Government should bring in the best aspects of the Scottish legislation—it does not have to be the complete system—as quickly as possible, so that everyone is protected within a framework of law. There would be no need to bring in all aspects of the Scottish system. All that is needed is that element of certainty by which a price can be agreed and remain certain before all the legal niceties have been worked through.
At the moment, uncertainty is damaging to everyone. Those of us with homes do not gain, because if we sell our house it will have gone up just as much. Those without a home have the horror of seeing prices escalate beyond their reach. It is the young couples starting out in life and the elderly who want security in their old age who are most damaged by that situation.
The Government should come clean. If, as the Minister seemed to suggest on radio and television, the Government consult on the matter, they should set out the basis of consultation. Certainly a large number of people have a great deal of experience to recount because they have suffered personal loss in recent weeks and months. Talk of a voluntary code is a diversion. If the Government do nothing, they should say so clearly, and explain to people their reasons for that extraordinary and callous neglect. They should either give us the basis of the negotiation or say that they will do nothing before the recess so that we know where we stand.
Without an immediate and positive response now, before the recess, the Government must stand exposed by the answers of Ministers, the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister. They must stand guilty of failing to act,

they must stand guilty of a cover-up, and they must be exposed as guilty of running away from the house price scandal and abandoning millions of ordinary people who need a simple framework of legal protection as they undertake the single most important financial transaction of their lives, to put roofs over their heads.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise three issues before we adjourn for the summer recess.
In 1984, the Government were so concerned about advances in medical science relating to research projects involving the human embryo that they established a special committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Lady Warnock. That report, which was far from unanimous, was subsequently debated in Parliament and it was clear that there was general opposition to the use of the human embryo for the purposes of research Mr. Enoch Powell, who at that time was a Member of Parliament, chose to use his place in the private Members' ballot to introduce a Bill—the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill—to prevent the use of the human embryo for experimental purposes.
When that Bill was debated in Parliament, it received an overwhelming majority on Second Reading, but it failed to make progress due to the vagaries of our private Members Bill procedure, which make it possible for a small but determined handful of hon. Members to block progress on any Bill, no matter how great the support it enjoys in the House.
In the next Session, the Bill was again given a substantial majority when it was reintroduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves). Again, a majority blocked its progress. In the ensuing Session, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) made an unavailing attempt to get the Bill through, and in the current Session, the Bill has been picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind).
I should have thought that it was obvious that the House wanted to legislate on that subject. Recognising that, the Government produced a consultation document, and after receiving evidence, last year published a White Paper setting out their plans for legislation which would involve bringing forward a Bill with alternative clauses —one allowing embryo experimentation and one preventing such experimentation. Indeed, during the last general election, they gave a commitment that legislation would be brought forward as soon as practicable.
Therefore, I hope that the inclusion of such proposals will appear in the forthcoming Queen's Speech. But there are disturbing rumours that the Government have no intention of taking action on that important issue. I do not believe that the House should rise for the summer recess until we have had an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that he accepts that failure to legislate would be greeted with profound disappointment by many hon. Members and by millions of people in the country.
Similarly, we cannot go into recess with clear consciences until we have reached a decision on abortion law reform. I have raised that issue before, and I make no apology for raising it again.
It was clear from the repeated majorities in favour of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that the House believes that the time is long overdue for the reform of our too-liberal abortion laws. The Abortion (Amendment) Bill was a limited measure and would have allowed the House to reach a decision on this important issue. However, the Bill was lost because a small but determined group of opponents used the procedures of the House to prevent the necessary votes from being taken. All that was needed was a little extra time. All the arguments had been made and people outside Parliament could not understand why, having debated the issue, Parliament was prevented from expressing its will.
I hope that, before we rise, we can receive from my right hon. Friend an assurance that in the near future the Government will find some way for the House to reach a conclusion. I warn my right hon. Friend that the problem will not go away. If no action is taken, similar Bills will continue to appear, and the more that opponents of abortion reform do to prevent a decision being reached, the more the House will be brought in disrepute.
Unless those matters are dealt with before the House rises, many right hon. and hon. Members will not be able to start the recess with easy minds, and we will join that other large group of deeply troubled people—the Barlow Clowes investors, some of whom, through the collapse of the Barlow Clowes companies, have lost their entire life savings. Those people were not greedy, and they were not speculators; they are ordinary retired people, some of whom invested their redundancy payments in that unfortunate venture. They have in common a sense of disbelief and shock at what has happened to them.
I am always wary of giving publicity to constituents' private problems, and many constituents have told me about their heavy losses over this fiasco. However, a church in Altrincham has been hit by that debacle. A recent article in the Manchester Evening News stated:
An Altrincham vicar fears his church has lost £42,500 invested in the crashed £190 million empire of Cheshire tycoon Peter Clowes.
Building work at St. John the Evangelist, in St. John's Road, Altrincham, has been left unfinished after construction of a parish and community centre in the west end of the Victorian building stopped days after the crash.
It went on to say:
they went ahead with the investment on the advice of 'a practising Christian', Mr. Gordon Pettie. His Poynton-based Gordon Pettie Investment Services was last week suspended by Fimbra, the watchdog for financial intermediaries.
The money came from the sale of the church hall alongside St. John's, which is a landmark in the Altrincham area.
Later in the article the vicar stated:
'"What really sold us on this investment was that the brochure for BCI portfolio 68 implied that all the money would be invested in gilts.'
In the event, when the liquidators moved in they discovered that out of £138 million invested in the offshore BCI fund only £2 million had been placed in gilts, and there was only a further £24 million in bank accounts.
I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry set up an urgent inquiry by Sir Godfray Le Quesne, and we can expect a report in mid-October. I went to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on behalf of my constituents. He told me that he had read every letter that had been sent to the Department of Trade and Industry by Barlow Clowes

investors. He had been saddened and upset by some of the letters; he promised that the report would not be a whitewash and that it would get at the truth.
However, I was disturbed to read in the Daily Mail on 25 July:
A battle between Trade Secretary Lord Young and virtually the entire Tory party is boiling up over the Barlow Clowes financial scandal.
He has told MPs he will vigorously oppose Whitehall compensation for about 17,000 small investors.
It continues:
But Lord Young, fully backed by the Treasury, is digging in hard. It is not so much the money as the principle. If the Government is found to have been negligent, the Barlow Clowes affair could become the benchmark for other cash claims on Whitehall when other firms crash on the Stock Exchange.
That is not good enough. If the report proves that there were faults in the Department of Trade and Industry, then some compensation must be paid.
Many of my constituents have told me that they invested in Barlow Clowes because it had the stamp of approval from the Department of Trade and Industry. Many investors feel that they should have been alerted long before the crash.
Therefore, before the House rises, there should be a statement that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not set his face against compensation, if it is proved that there is culpability at the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that justice will be done for the 18,000 unfortunate investors.
I hope that we can have a statement on those three important subjects—the protection of the human embryo against experimentation, abortion law reform and the need to reassure the Barlow Clowes investors—before the House rises for the summer Adjournment.

Mr. John Garrett: I want to follow the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), although I hasten to add that there was no collusion between us.
Before the House rises, I wanted to consider the stress that is caused by the shortage of affordable housing to rent and to buy, which is at its worst in East Anglia, and worst of all in my constituency. The problem is reaching crisis proportions, and is a result of Government policies, high mortgage rates, uncontrolled house prices and a virtual end to house building by local authorities.
I shall exemplify what I have to say by showing the extent of stress caused by these factors in my constituency. In Norwich, a small terraced house costs about £45,000 —although it may have gone up while I am speaking. It is not unusual for the price of a house like that to rise by £1,000 overnight. Gazumping is rife. Many of my constituents have complained to me that they wish that the Government would follow through an ostensible promise made by a Minister last week to do something about gazumping, if only by moving to an approximation of the Scottish system.
Norwich has the highest rate of house price increases in the country. Last year, house prices in the city rose by 40 per cent., and in the last quarter by 25 per cent. I do not know whether the changes in the Finance (No. 2) Bill will make any difference from the end of this month, but at the


moment it looks as if house prices are rising geometrically, with about 50 per cent. increases every half year, as against 40 per cent. in the whole of last year.
East Anglia in general, and Norwich in particular, have traditionally been low-wage areas. Many people there work in occupations with an average wage of £6,000 a year. So even if a building society or insurance company is willing to offer a multiple of three times a person's income, the cheapest house is still out of reach. If a person and his partner can raise between them three times the former's income and one and half times the latter's, the smallest terraced house will still be out of their reach.
The council's waiting list contains 5,000 applicants— the highest number ever—of whom 3,500 are now in shared accommodation. Five hundred elderly or disabled people are on the waiting list for sheltered accommodation, of which the city has 170 units. The waiting list for such accommodation can be imagined. A typical elderly person waiting for transfer to more suitable accommodation—typically from a house on an estate into a ground-floor flat, sheltered accommodation or a bungalow —has a wait of four and a half to five and a half years. Many of them die while on the waiting list.
A single person's average wait on the list is five years or more, so many single people end up sharing accommodation in houses in multiple occupation. The number of such houses in the city has risen dramatically in recent years. Many of them are overcrowded and unsatisfactory, with poor facilities and inadequate fire safety standards. The council's programme of inspection has been put under pressure by the sheer number of properties to be visited, and it is not even known for certain how many there are.
Many families with children in upper flats are in desperate need of suitable accommodation. There are 1,700 such people on the waiting list with 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. priority. Not one of my surgeries goes by without a couple or a single parent being reduced to tears by the fact that they are stuck in an upper flat with no prospects for years to come of moving themselves and their children into a more appropriate property with a garden and a space to play in which the children can be supervised.
Norwich city council used to have one of the finest housing records in the country, with 25,000 council houses under its control. Ten years ago it built 528 in one year; in 1988 the prospect is that it will build 76, of which 20 or 30 will be sheltered accommodation. It will take 20 years to clear the backlog of private house owners who are waiting for home improvement grants under present Government allocations.
The city of Norwich housing committee's annual report shows the financial contribution that the city can make to decent housing. Like any other district, it draws up an annual housing investment programme for new housebuilding, improvements and modernisations. This year's bid was for £22 million, part of which would be met by borrowing. However, borrowing for housing investment by local authorities must be approved by the Government, who have consistently refused to allow Norwich to invest in local housing. The amount approved was £5 million. As a result of being able to keep 20 per cent. of the funds realised from the sale of council houses, the final outturn was £12 million. Local freedom to set a realistic and responsible budget for housing investment has all but disappeared.
To summarise: extraordinary market forces in the private sector have driven owner-occupation beyond the means of many local people—particularly young people setting out on an independent life, and newly married people. These forces have created a shortage of rented accommodation too. Government policies on housing investment mean that the council is trying to meet the need for affordable rented property without adequate resources, which are continually refused by the Government. As a result, housing waiting lists are longer and longer, there are new levels of homelessness and more people are being forced to live in overcrowded and unsatisfactory conditions.
As I said before, Norwich has an exceptional record for good housing. I am pleased to say that it has been under Labour control for 55 years. It now has the largest Labour majority in its history and I have no doubt that it will be under Labour control for the rest of my lifetime.
Given the opportunity, the council could provide the decent housing for which it was famed until the onset of this Government. Government policies have forced all this housing stress on my constituents, and that is a matter that should be drawn to the Government's attention before the House rises.

Mr. Michael Latham: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me, as the first non-knight to speak from the Conservative Benches in the debate.
I agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) about Barlow Clowes. I raised this subject with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in business questions this afternoon: it is a matter of the greatest importance. If, when the report appears during the recess—as presumably it will—it blames the Department of Trade and Industry directly or indirectly, many hon. Members will expect immediate action to be taken to compensate those who have been left in a distraught state.
There is no point in shirking this. We must ask ourselves, in the event that the DTI is blamed, who takes the responsibility? If nothing happens and we go on as before, we shall have to conclude that ministerial responsibility no longer counts for anything in this country. I shall expect something to be done immediately if blame is apportioned to the DTI—and so will my constituents who have been affected. I cannot say this too strongly to my right hon. Friend.
A few days ago, a disturbing report appeared recommending that the Government should consider abandoning the formula of the resource allocation working party—the so-called RAWP formula—which was first put in place by the last Labour Government, specifically by the then Minister of State responsible for the Health Service, Roland Moyle.
I first entered the House as a Member representing Leicestershire in 1974. At that time the Leicestershire health authority—or its predecessor, the area health authority—received only 75 per cent of average National Health Service funding. Largely as a result of the RAWP formula, it is now up to 96 per cent., but I stress that we are still 4 per cent. below the average. The RAWP formula should not be taken away from Leicestershire. Further, it should not be taken away from the whole Trent region,


which, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) knows only too well, is poorly funded. It is essential to the Trent region and Leicestershire district health authority. I entirely understand why Ministers want to help London hospitals, but they must not do so by messing around with the RAWP.
We must give more attention—I know that we had a debate on this subject on Tuesday—to the state of our roads, especially our motorways and the need for more bypasses. The M1 and M25 are an absolute scandal. It is disgraceful that deplorable forecasts were made years ago, yet we are still building new roads that will be over capacity before they are even opened.
When Ministers bring forward the transport policy programme allocations to local authorities later this year, money should be found for essential bypasses. Traffic is fast grinding to a halt in Oakham in my constituency. We must have a bypass, but it appears that it could be 10 years or more before anything is done. As a modern industrial country, we should be ashamed of the state of the M25 and M1 and of the delay and inconvenience that they are causing motorists and lorries taking essential exports abroad.
Please will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as a matter of urgency when we return after the recess, arrange for the annual debate on the reports of the Public Accounts Committee? There is an essential wealth of material to be brought to the attention of the House about gross waste of money by one Department after another, especially the Ministry of Defence. We need to hear how Ministers will respond to the reports of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Apart from my constituency work, I regard serving on the Public Accounts Committee as the most important and constructive work that I do in the House.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a problem about which I feel as strongly as hon. Members do about the problems in their constituencies—the Government's privatisation proposals for Northern Ireland.
It has already been said that the Northern Ireland electricity service will be privatised. An announcement has been made about Harland and Wolff, and, to top it all, Short Brothers plc is to be privatised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) will address these problems later, but I express my views in the hope that the Government will respond positively to our joint appeals.
Today, a group of responsible trade unionists from Belfast came to London to express to hon. Members their concerns about the disasters that they perceive of massive job losses and irreparable damage being done to the Northern Ireland economy at a time when we need evidence of continuing good will and support. I sincerely hope that the Government will not try to provoke confrontation and industrial conflict, because it can and should be avoided at all costs.
Ulster Unionist Members do not dogmatically support nationalisation or privatisation. We recognise the merits of privately managed industry, and, in certain circumstances,

further privatisation of industry in Northern lreland may gain acceptance and support, but the time and circumstances are not right for wholesale privatisation. It is being done for the worst possible reason—to gain the Prime Minister's approval by implementing her policies regardless of the consequences for Northern Ireland. To some, that would seem the only possible reason for the lemming-like rush to privatisation.
The Shorts sell-off will be regarded as sounding the death knell for Ulster industry. Following the proposals for Harland and Wolff and the Northern Ireland electricity service, it shatters confidence in our fragile economy and will produce uncertainty across our weak manufacturing base.
As elected representatives, we cannot condone complacency or inefficiency. Evidence of industrial co-operation between trade unions and management has shown a commitment to higher productivity, greater efficiency and a desire to give value for money. Our recent experience is a catalogue of collapse among major industries. Private sector companies such as ICI, Courtaulds, Klingers, British Enkalon and Careeras in Carrickfergus—which for several years received Queen's awards for exports—have all closed down, despite their efficiency and productivity. Confidence is therefore not inspired by claims that private sector industry will secure long-term employment.
Jobs at Shorts can be sustained until it is profitable. Jobs in all sectors could be secured if assistance were given through public funding. The current spate of privatisation proposals do nothing to give hope to young graduates, school leavers, the long-term unemployed, those undergoing retraining or those whose jobs are threatened.
Privatisation could result in more damage to our industrial base than the sustained terrorist campaign of the past 20 years. If there is a withdrawal of support for large industries, terrorists will claim success and say that they have had a further victory in their "Brits Out" campaign.
Hundreds of companies take sub-contract work from large firms, thus providing employment throughout the Province, in which people from all sectors can share. The whole industrial community, because of the position at Shorts, feel threatened. Managers employed in the public sector foresee an opportunity for greater reward in private industry. Their interest in, and judgment of, privatisation is coloured by the salary increases that have occurred after denationalisation.
As elected representatives, my colleagues and I continue to support the public funding of industries in Northern Ireland. Since direct rule was imposed, the policies pursued by successive Governments have not produced peace, security or prosperity. We are tempted to ask whether privatisation is the final sabotage. When will the Government listen and respond positively to Northern Ireland's representatives?
Shorts is recognised internationally, and operates at the frontier of modern technology. We want it to remain a single entity. We accept responsibility for the allocation of necessary funding from the Northern Ireland block grant to sustain existing industries until there are other employment alternatives for our people. The credibility gap between the ordinary people of Northern Ireland and the Government is growing and becoming more difficult to bridge.
We appeal to the Government to recognise the special difficulties of Northern Ireland, such as high unemployment, which at current job-creation rates, will not be significantly reduced for nearly 20 years. There are more people unemployed than there are employed in our wealth-creating manufacturing sector. We have still to benefit from the boom in British business that is so often referred to. Government support for our large industries is needed to maintain progress, to maintain the confidence of existing investors and to encourage potential overseas investment in Northern Ireland.
I am tempted to ask whether there is a deliberate policy to secure equal unemployment for everyone in Northern Ireland. The privatisation proposals could achieve just that. We ask for an opportunity to get Northern Ireland manufacturing industry on a sound base before any decision on privatisation is taken. Her Majesty's Government could prove that there is no economic withdrawal by withdrawing the proposals to privatise Shorts.
I appeal to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his Ministers to undertake to support the management and trade unions at Shorts with an imaginative investment policy, to modernise facilities and machinery and support development projects that will ensure the continuation of Shorts as a design/engineering aircraft manufacturer. That is a much better option than a sell-off, with all its dangers for future employment. I hope that there will be a positive response before the House adjourns.

Sir Dudley Smith: As I said yesterday in the debate on immigration, in global terms we are a small island with a large population. It is vital that we should consider in detail the structural and physical development of our country so that sensible, enlightened and protective systems are in place at the beginning of the next century.
With some glaring exceptions, our record on planning and protection has been fairly good, particularly when compared with continental countries. It has been better than large city reconstruction, where architects and builders have effectively ruined so many city centres. The pressures for expansive further development appear to be irresistible—some of them have been mentioned today by Opposition Members—and it is essential that we should adopt a fresh and refined approach.
For years I have been saying that we must guard against the ultimate concrete jungle running from the Trent all the way to Brighton. However, every generation and every decade brings with it more building and a worrying diminution of the countryside. There are new pressures, for a variety of reasons. The chief reason is the need for less land for agricultural purposes, and there is the question of what use should now be made of it. More and more people want to live in the south-east—in London, the home counties and the southern part of the west midlands.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Dudley Smith: Usually I would willingly give way, but I wish to be brief because many colleagues want to take part in the debate. I intend no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will understand.
My concern has been stimulated by developments in my immediate area. The probable opening of the M40 motorway next autumn has turned mid-Warwickshire into a gold-rush area. Everything is booming. The value of many houses has doubled in a short time. With the coming of the motorway, people, companies and national organisations are discovering that mid-Warwickshire is the heart of England and that it has excellent communications, is pleasant and desirable, with a good infrastructure and atmosphere. The result is escalating house prices, almost on a par with London, and the inevitable pressures for much more building.
The extraordinary thing is that our population has increased far less than was anticipated 30 years ago and will show only modest increases for the foreseeable future; yet we have a vast concentration of population in the south-east and it is now beginning to spill over into the west midlands. The penalties are over-priced property, traffic snarl-ups of horrendous proportions, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), and a general environment that is far less attractive than it used to be.
It is opportune that this week the Countryside Commission produced a discussion paper entitled "Planning for change: Development in a green country-side". That should be debated in the House and I hope that we will have an opportunity to do that when we return in the autumn. After reading the excellent report, which is still in its draft discussion stage, and listening to the debate in my area on the intensifying pressures, I am convinced that we need to embark on some essential courses.
We must maintain the integrity of the green belt and the continued separation of urban and rural areas. There must be a much more determined bid to convert derelict, vacant and available land in towns and cities into housing areas. I know that there are already rules on that, but they do not appear to be effective enough. We need a latter-day Domesday Book survey, a veritable crusade by the Department of the Environment, to achieve an impact. We must retain the integrity of attractive and well-developed communities, such as those in mid-Warwickshire, despite the calls for considerable expansion due to population pressures.
We need new villages, attractively and imaginatively developed on suitable sites, with housing of an expensive and modest type, which is compatible with a village atmosphere and which does not look as if it had been transported from an urban housing estate. We need to revise our planning laws, particularly the appeals procedures, which at present enable many developers to press and press until finally they overthrow the decisions of elected councillors and the wishes of the local residents.
Those are vital and substantial matters for the future. They certainly need to be discussed, and I commend a reading of the report to all hon. Members who are interested in the future of our country. It is our responsibility, and we must discharge it properly.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The motion we are discussing says:
the House shall not adjourn on Friday 29th July until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.
I do not know whether there are any outstanding Acts or whether the poll tax Bill has yet returned for its Royal


Assent. If it has not, I would gladly see it lost until the next general election rather than put such a constitutional and democratic monstrosity on the statute book.
We are about to move into recess for almost three months. That harms considerably our constituents' interests. Hon. Members have no parliamentary avenues for the redress of grievances on behalf of constituents. There are no parliamentary questions, written or oral, no petitions can be presented, no early-day motions can be presented for Departments to read, no Adjournment debates and no interventions or contributions in debate. There is one value in Parliament going into recess for three months, and that is that no fresh legislation can be put on the statute book in that time.
The position for constituents is serious. The only avenues that remain open to hon. Members are to write letters to Ministers, many of which take a considerable time to be answered during the recess, or engaging in publicity. The chances for publicity are greater for some hon. Members than for others. As an honest tradesman and a new Member, I am wedged between my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Their avenues for publicity may be somewhat greater than mine, However, if the House is sitting, I can follow parliamentary avenues.
I grant that it has been a long slog since Christmas and that the House has examined a vast amount of legislation. Hon. Members are ready for a meaningful break. I suggest that we develop different working patterns, and I am glad that the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) are present to hear my suggestion. I believe that we should operate in three or four-week cycles and then have a week off from parliamentary duties so that we can concentrate on constituency work and catch up on correspondence. We could then limit ourselves to a six-week summer break which would be concentrated more clearly on holiday periods and party conferences. In that way, our constituents would not lose their avenues of redress. Our constituents' interests dictate the introduction of such a working pattern, and it would allow constituency and parliamentary matters to be dealt with fully and properly.
A delegation from Derbyshire county council has just visited the Department of Trade and Industry. The council wants intermediate status to be given to the Chesterfield travel-to-work area. To make the sort of speech that I should make about the proposal will mean a wait of three months, but perhaps I may mention it briefly today. The criteria for determining the map of assisted areas were set out by the former Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)—when the review of regional policy was presented to the House on 28 November 1984. He said:
The map has been drawn on the basis of objective criteria, and unemployment, long-term unemployment, job oppor-tunities, industrial structure and peripherality, have all been taken into account.
Earlier, he said:
In redrawing the map we considered the present and future employment patterns of each area, along with other factors, including the risk of distortions where non-assisted areas are adjacent to assisted areas."—[Official Report, 28 November 1984; Vol. 68, c.936–42.]

If I had time, I would establish why those criteria mean that the Chesterfield travel-to-work area, which covers Chesterfield constituency, sections of Bolsover con-stituency and the great bulk of my constituency, should be considered for intermediate status. The area has suffered tremendously from cuts in the coal industry and its future is unsure. It requires Government assistance, and certainly intermediate status.
An area that retains an element of coal mining and coal dependency will have tremendous problems when electricity is privatised, with all that that entails for the competitiveness of coal. The ports Bills that are proceeding through the House—my district council has laid objections to the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill and the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill—will allow cheap coal from overseas to flood into Britain, and we know that South African and Colombian coal is produced in circumstances of great exploitation. A map given to me by the Opencast Executive of British Coal shows its interests in the constituency. Opencast developments would turn the area into a dustbowl. They will produce some jobs, but they will not be permanent and they will not replace the jobs lost in the deep mines.
Another problem in the area is the non-development of the east midlands railway line. The east coast line is being electrified, and the danger facing Derbyshire is that places such as Sheffield will be linked to the east coast line, so that passenger and goods development will be maintained in the north while the east midlands will be unable to compete. It could lead to a decline in goods services in the east midlands. In that context, there is a clear case for granting intermediate status, as one method of Government assistance, to the Chesterfield travel-to-work area.
Much more could be said about that, and I hope to do so in the House in the future. If we had more sensible working practices, that opportunity would come sooner rather than later.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I hope that the House will not rise for the recess until the Government have made a statement on the reasons why they decided not to support further the HOTOL project. It would have been even better if the Government had allowed parliamentary time to debate an issue of such magnitude. It was an abuse of the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced in a written answer that the Government would withhold further funding for the project.
There is no project of comparable significance for the future of space development in Britain, and experts much wiser than I have commented that the project offered immense hope for the future. Conventional launchers, such as Ariane, the Atlas Centaur and the shuttle, will prove far too costly in the future, and when horizontally launched reusable space vehicles become available, projects such as HOTOL will become the norm because they will be infinitely cheaper than conventional systems for putting payloads into space.
In November last year the Government were in a minority of one in dissociating themselves from the European Space Agency's long-term space programme. The Government decided not to support the optional


programme, Ariane 5—a man-rated heavy launch vehicle —secondly, not to support Hermes—a re-usable minishuttle—and, thirdly, probably not to support Columbus —a manned module—although they withheld their decision on this. I am glad to learn that the United Kingdom will participate in a platform associated with Columbus, which is of the greatest importance because it is Europe's contribution to the international space station project that is being led by the United States.
Space stations are the building blocks for future space activities. The Soviets know it well and have concentrated on ambitious programmes. For example, they are developing a very heavy launcher—Energiya—which will form the basis of a shuttle system. They have a somewhat less powerful launcher, the HL16, which will carry a space plane rather like Hermes. They have had Salyut and Mir space stations in orbit for protracted periods. They intend to send probes to Phobos, and eventually they will send their space vehicles to Mars and beyond.
In short, what is at stake is of the greatest strategic, as well as commercial and technical, importance, yet my right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster thought it appropriate to fob off Parliament with a curt written answer.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have found me repetitious and boring in the past, because for week after week and month after month before the ESA ministerial Council meeting last November I suggested that the Government should find time to debate space policy. It seems to have been impossible for them to do so, so it is not surprising that they were at odds with expert opinion. In that sense, in this country we are somewhat poorly provided in Parliament. In the United States, in Congress there are Senators Glenn of Ohio and Jake Garn of Utah and a former senator of New Mexico, all of whom have been astronauts. Congressman Nelson, the chairman of the present House of Representatives space committee is also an astronaut. In the United States, space is a normal activity. It is a totally everyday activity whose commercial potential and strategic significance are understood.
In this country, we believe that space is weird and wonderful, out and beyond and fantastically expensive. Are we to suggest that our people in future will not be able to play a part in space activities commensurate with their technical competence and their undoubted innovative genius? The Government have been woefully shortsighted.
My emotions have alternated between fury and sorrow. To be candid, sorrow has predominated. I do not particularly blame my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He does not have experience of international collaboration. My right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster similarly lacks such experience. Collaboration is the name of the game. Space is a totally international business. We have had a meaningful, worthwhile space programme in Europe because we have collaborated and worked together with partner nations.
By opting out of the European space plan in November, the Government have put themselves at a disadvantage. If we hope to attract partners for HOTOL, it would have helped if we had supported other programmes in the European Space Agency's overall strategic programme. International collaboration is a game of quid pro quo. We enter some programmes which do not appear to have

short-term national interest to us and support programmes which may be of benefit to other partners. Overall, however, the benefit to all partners is indubitable and must be recognised.
I know that the Government judge these matters by short-term commercial criteria. We opted out of the launcher business deliberately when we allowed the Blue Streak launcher, which became Europa I, to be cancelled. Fortunately, the French pursued the Ariane series of rockets. Arianespace, the commercial launch company, is now making extremely good profits. It has a large order book and with the temporary failure of the shuttle programme it offers great potential for the future. Had the French not shown their strategic vision, Europe would be out of the space business in any significant sense.
The Government said that the European Space Agency was an expensive club. They said so out of sheer prejudice and blind ignorance. With its Ariane series of launchers, the Spacelab, the meteosat series of remote-sensing satellites and with ERS1 in the future and other new programmes, not to mention scientific programmes like Giotto and others, ESA has shown that Europe, for a relatively small investment, can offer a capability fully comparable with the United States of America and the Soviet Union, although on a smaller scale.
I do not want to see this country relegated to the third eleven. It is not worthy of the United Kingdom. In the technical area within Europe, we should be playing a leading role. We have the capacity to do so. When Ministers and others say that we cannot afford it, I ask, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd): if we can somehow find £50,000 million per annum for social security, why cannot Ministers find £4 million in the next four years to continue the project definition of HOTOL? Ministers' statements are not true. They do not make sense and the Government are shortsighted. I am very sad and particularly regret that the Government did not act in the proper parliamentary way and allow us a debate or at least make a statement to the House so that we could question Ministers on what appears to be a quite extraordinary decision.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: We should have at least two debates before we adjourn. The first should be on the Committee stage of the European Communities Finance Bill whereby the House is asked to vote £800 million extra to the European Community. We understand that that may be paid before Royal Assent. Although that may be just legal, it is dodgy.
The second debate that we should have is even more important, not in procedural terms, but in current terms. We should debate the appointment of commissioners to the European Economic Community. There have been acres of space and comment in the press and commentary in the news media on that subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has raised questions germane to that matter relating to the Westland affair. The new appointments risk weakening our interests in Europe.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spearing: If my hon. Friend will excuse me, time is of the essence and I want to make as brief a speech as possible.
One of those to be appointed as a commissioner has a questionable track record and we do not know the other. The latter will be a novice and less experienced than the former Member of this House, Mr. Clinton Davis. Lord Cockfield did his job too well. He spilt the beans and said what it was all about. It is wrong, therefore, for the Prime Minister to attach M. Delors. Anyone who knows anything about European legislation and the speed with which it is now coming out of Brussels will be aware that 80 per cent. of the legislation will come from Brussels in a few years time is a very reasonable estimate from M. Delors and reflects the degree to which the House will lose power.
We should not expect any of our commissioners to do anything about that. They take a treaty oath and one of the major objectives of the treaty of Rome is European union. Two rookie novice commissioners can at best only affect the speed and possible terms of the movement; they cannot question the principles.
Recently the Prime Minister covered up the embarrassment of the appointment with her reshuffle and by banging the nationalist drum. I agree with the objectives of that in terms of her approach to the EEC, but she does that on entirely the wrong basis. She does it from a basis of certain ignorance. That ignorance was also shown by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) about 14 years ago. He said that the powers of the Queen would not be affected. He did not realise that this legislation reaches the citizens of this country direct without requiring Royal Assent or Her Majesty's signature.
I want to raise the question of ignorance by referring to what the Prime Minister said in an article in the Sunday Express last Sunday. She was talking about power and Parliaments and said:
When Europeans start talking about European union and this, that, and the other, I always say: 'What do you really mean? I can't see any of you going home and saying to your Parliaments: 'Look, I've taken away all your rights to do anything about what happens in this country; it's all going to Europe.'
They are not going to do it, however much they talk. I wouldn't be prepared to do it anyway.
The Prime Minister has done that. However, I must be careful. She used that little word "all". That is the way the Prime Minister goes about her work. She will include a little word which qualifies quite a lot.
We have given that power away. The Prime Minister has done that perhaps unwillingly. We have the Single European Act, which neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary signed. In fact, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office was sent off to sign it before she was a Privy Councillor.
That Act is still not properly printed in this country in terms of the new treaty of Rome. That says:
Resolved to implement this European Union.
Note the capital E and the capital U. That is not economic and monetary union, because the last line of the preamble to the single European Treaty says:
approved the objective of the progressive realization of Economic and Monetary Union.
There are two different things. The European Union is in the treaty of Rome to which the Government have given their assent.
Article 8A of the Single European Act provides:

The Community shall adopt measures with the aim of progressively establishing the internal market over a period expiring on 31 December 1992".
It says "expiring" and not "starting".
Article 100A, which is important, says:
The following provisions shall apply for the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 8A. The Council shall, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission in co-operation with the European Parliament".
In other words, anything to do with the realisation of that market in 1992 can be achieved by the majority vote of the Council of Ministers, even against the will of the Government and possibly against the will of the House.
Yet the Prime Minister says that she has not given power away. She implies that she has by the use of that misleading word "all". When talking on the Jimmy Young show she gave the impression that in future she will be able to hold the line, but that is not true because the Single European Act was put through the House in the summer of 1986. However, the small print was not understood by Conservative Members.
The Prime Minister wants the fruits of European union, or at least economic and monetary union, but the means by which it will be achieved are, of course, ill based. It is not a co-operative organisation, such as GATT or the European Free Trade Association or any of those things that hon. Members think it may be. The EEC is coercive and autocratic. The power is in Brussels. It is arbitrary political power, and we are told that it can be controlled in one of two ways: by the House taking power to control what our Ministers do there—and if the Prime Minister is concerned about parliamentary power, that is something to which she would agree and which she would implement —or by all the power going to Strasbourg and there being some sort of European Parliament, which would be a united states of Europe without the states, because there is no power for national assemblies in the treaty of Rome. The Prime Minister cannot bluster and fluster, because it is in the treaty and she has done what she told Jimmy Young she would never do.
I turn briefly to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), because they are important and they have not been properly answered. We must remember that terrible weekend when there was the official leak of the letter of the Solicitor-General, which was clearly solicited with a view to it being leaked before 4 pm on Monday 13 December 1986. It was only by getting it out at that time that the views of the then Secretary of State for Defence could be put into question with the imprimatur of the Solicitor-General. That letter contained many qualifications that were not part of the leak, so it was clear what was intended. It is a matter of evidence that the Prime Minister not only knew of it, but she condoned it; indeed, some people believe that she may have suggested it.
In paragraph 183 of its fourth report 1985–86, HC 519, the Select Committee on Defence said:
In replying to a supplementary question after her statement in the House on 23 January the Prime Minister said of the extract from the Solicitor-General's letter: 'It was to get that accurate information to the public domain that I gave my consent'. In her statement the Prime Minister had said that her office did not seek her agreement, and later in answer to supplementary questions she said 'I have said that I was not consulted at the time' and 'I say again that I was not consulted'. In confirmation of this Sir Robert Armstrong told us that he asked both Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell whether they sought clearance from the Prime Minister and they told him they did not. Sir Robert understood from the Prime Minister that her words in column 455 of 23 January, quoted


above, were a slip of the tongue. When questioned on the point on 27 January the Prime Minister explained that she had given her consent to an inquiry but did not give her consent to the disclosure.
It continues in bold print:
The evidence is that the action of the Prime Minister's office on 6 January in relation to the disclosure was without her direct authority. She has stated that she had no knowledge on 6 January of what was taking place. We accept this.
The Prime Minister may not have had any knowledge on 6 January. She said that she was not consulted at the time, but she may have been consulted before.
On 23 January 1986, the Prime Minister said:
In so far as what my office said to the Department of Trade and Industry was based on the belief that I should have taken that view, had I been consulted, it was right.
In other words, she said that they had acted in line with what she would have done had she been consulted. However, they would not have done that without knowledge of what was in her mind.
On the same occasion, the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) asked the right hon. Lady a friendly question and she hit out from the boundary. She walked down the crease. She said, "We must get this into the public domain." She further said:
It was to get that accurate information to the public domain that I gave my consent."—[Official Report, 23 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 450 and 455.]
That was quoted by the Select Committee.
How did she get out of it? That could not have been the consent to the inquiry, because the question of the right hon. Member for Woking was not about that. The Select Committee took up that matter and asked questions of that economist of the truth, Sir Robert Armstrong. It was followed up in questions 1251 and 1252.
1252. You have not taken any opportunity to clear that up yourself in the post facto of your inquiry? (Sir Robert Armstrong.) I gather from the Prime Minister it was a slip of the tongue.
A slip of the tongue, which we all sometimes make, is when we say something that is not true. I suggest that this was not one of those at all. It was something that was only too true and something that the Prime Minister wished she had not said, which was consistent with the slip of the tongue phrase.
It also explains that enigmatic point that she made in a television interview. The interviewer asked:
But why on that date, though, January the 27th, were you so down that you said, 'I may not be Prime Minister by six o'clock tonight' after the Westland debate?
The Prime Minister replied:
You suddenly come out with these things.
I suggest that she said it for the reasons stated in the Select Committee report and Hansard, which I have quoted. The Prime Minister was being quite honest—"Yes, I did give my consent." Of course, it could have been given some time before that weekend.
The Select Committee then made some remarks about the behaviour of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). It said at paragraph 177:
Although those involved must carry blame for what occurred, what seems especially reprehensible is a manner of doing business where the direct and honourable course does not present itself to the exclusion of all else.
It continues at paragraph 179:
This was an outrageous way in which to treat a Law Officer of the Crown".
They solicited an opinion, which was immediate and conditional, and then used it for purposes of civil war inside the Government.
Having studied the texts that I have quoted, I suggest that the culpability for that unfortunate incident in which the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks —now the commissioner-elect—was involved is to be shared in equal measure by the Prime Minister. If by any chance she did not know that it was going on, what sort of Government are they and what sort of Prime Minister is she? What sort of political integrity is it that allows a Government to be run on that basis? She cannot have it both ways. She either knew or, if she did not, she was running a Government which had run amok through civil war.
We should have a debate on this matter before we adjourn. I shall briefly put to the House the questions which the Prime Minister should answer, and they are the questions which should be debated.
First, is it not a fact that the Government resisted the drafting and method of introduction of the Single European Act but nevertheless introduced it to the House against the initial desires of the Government?
Secondly, does not majority voting deny the Government and Parliament power over large areas of legislation, and is that not contrary to the spirit of what the Prime Minister declared on the Jimmy Young show she would never do?
Thirdly, was not the Prime Minister's slip of the tongue on 23 January 1986 in fact a correct statement and the "slip" arose only because she said something true which she would have preferred not to have said?
Fourthly, as all the evidence and what the Prime Minister said about her wishes shows that she approved the principle of disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter, should she not share the strictures of the Defence Select Committee? Should she not appoint the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks to the Commission of the EEC? Should she not share to some extent the fate that befell that right hon. and learned Member, and should she not consider whether she should remain as Prime Minister?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. There is very little time left and several hon. Members still wish to speak.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has chosen to speak at some length, thus taking up precious time available before the House rises for the summer recess, on a subject which has already been debated many times.
There are many reasons why we should not adjourn tomorrow and there are many subjects which we ought to discuss, but there is one which I venture to suggest we must debate before the House rises as it involves a matter which will have to be adjudicated on by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Treasury before we resume in the autumn. I refer to the entitlement of colonial service pensioners to war service being counted towards their pension entitlement.
Do you realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that all public servants in Britain are entitled to count war scrvice—either the whole of it or half of it, depending on whether their pension is contributory or non-contributory—towards


their pension, but that that is not true for those whose service was overseas? This is a curious anomaly which affects a branch of the public service which has rendered signal, loyal and devoted service to the country in tropical climes, often in adverse, primitive and distressing circumstances.
About 4,500 people are involved, and they are retired and mostly in their seventies. The number is therefore diminishing yearly. Why are they not entitled to count their war service towards their pensions? The answer is that, although they are all British citizens who, apart from their service abroad, have always been resident in Britain, they were employed and paid by the colonial Governments they served. That is despite the fact that the Secretary of State recruited and trained them and sent them out to our colonial empire to do service for the Crown.
Because these people were not employed by the British Government, they were told that they could not count their pre-appointment war service towards their pension entitlement. Teachers, local government officers, policemen and other civil servants are entitled to count such service. Colonial service officers are the only exception.
This is a great injustice, and it ought to be remedied. Not many people are involved, and not much money is involved. I must say that I would be a beneficiary if any such claim were granted, but it is such a stark injustice that I feel obliged to draw attention to it. I understand that, in the next few days, presumably, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will again consider what claims to make by way of its estimates for the coming year.
If the Treasury does not agree to a Department's claim, after negotiation, the matter is referred to a thing called the Court of Star Chamber. At one time, I understood from reading the newspapers—I know that I should not have done it—that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would be chairman of the Court of Star Chamber. I understand, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has been appointed to that function. That is a pity, because I have been asking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about this matter for weeks in the hope that he would remember it when he came to help adjudicate on this small claim on public expenditure.
I have just discovered that if the Department concerned does not include a claim in its preliminary Estimates, the claim gets nowhere. How, therefore, am I to ensure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office puts this entirely just, overdue and well-merited claim to the Treasury in the first place? There is provision for superannuation payments to overseas service officers, but how do I know that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will include this extra item so that it might be considered by the Treasury? I am sure that the Treasury would agree to the claim if it considered the merits of the case, but if the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not put it forward, the claim can get nowhere.
I am therefore forced to raise the matter now. There is overwhelming support in the House for the claim to be met. Early in this Session I tabled an early-day motion commending the claim to the Government. No fewer than 260 hon. Members signed it in its original form. Another 88 signed an amendment suggesting that the claim should

be met immediately. That means that some 348 hon. Members support the claim. That is an absolute majority in the House.
What more does one have to say to persuade the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to put the claim before the Treasury, for the Treasury, having considered it on its merits, is bound to grant it? We are talking about a budget of thousands of millions of pounds. There must be an order of priorities. No doubt there are other considerations which must be taken into account, but an exception or anomaly which is an injustice, and which involves a debt of honour which should be paid, should be put at the top of that list of priorities.
The claim should be met before other and more substantial new claims are met. I hope that, as a result of my raising the matter today, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will include the claim in its draft estimates which are to be put to the Treasury in the next few weeks, and that the Treasury will see the merit of the case. If it does, it will at last have brought some justice justice to a small and dwindling group of people who have devoted their entire lives to the service of this country abroad. They deserve to have this injustice remedied. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will, in so far as he has influence in the matter, support it.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: The House should not rise for the recess until we have thoroughly discussed the Government's claims that savings released through competitive tendering for hospital services have in any way contributed to improved patient care. I challenge that claim with the full backing of the victims of this policy, who include patients, workers and users of the Health Service. When the savings—£106 million at the last DHSS estimate—are claimed, they do not account for the full costs of abandoning workers to the dole queue and of further reducing low-paid workers' wages. They certainly do not take account of the reduced services to patients and the increased stress on other workers left to pick up the burden of extra work.
I worked for many years in the National Health Service and later as a member of my local health authority. I voted and campaigned against the privatisation of the local laundry and domestic services. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to hear that, because of the way in which the Government have packed district health authorities with their supporters, I lost the vote. In my authority, 250 workers, most of whom were women, lost their jobs when Mediclean gained the contract. By any standards that has been a failure. Initially, the contractors thought that only half the hours needed to clean our hospitals was necessary. Those who stayed to work for Mediclean lost their bonus, holiday pay, sickness benefit and holiday entitlements, and were expected to work twice as hard as previously. After 12 months there had been a 100 per cent. staff turnover and a report from the local infection control committee which warned that unhygienic conditions were prevailing. That pattern has been repeated across the country. Since then, complaint after complaint has been ignored and if people visit my local hospitals they will see that they are dirtier than previously.
Many low-paid workers lost their jobs and many remain unemployed, but unemployment statistics do not show that. It is well known that part-time women workers


often do not have any entitlement to benefit in their own right. Mediclean has failed on six of the 37 contracts that it is known to have held since 1983, which is a failure rate of 15 per cent. But in my book it has failed the NHS, because the in-house staff offered a much better service.
When staff are sacked to make way for private operators, redundancy costs are not systematically accounted for in the savings figures, but the financial and human costs are undoubtedly high. Health authorities are expected to recoup redundancy costs against savings over the period of the contract, but if a contractor is sacked or pulls out, as often happens, the authority must carry the whole cost itself and that is not accounted for.
I challenge head on the claim that savings have been made for taxpayers. Ninety-two thousand ancillary workers have lost their jobs, which is 30 per cent. of all ancillary staff in the NHS, since contracting out began. When people are thrown on to the dole or forced to claim other benefits, it is at a great cost to taxpayers. Moreover, it is immoral to throw people out of work just to save money. Many of those jobs provided secure and regular work for thousands of people and even if we thought that they were low paid—for many years I was a shop steward working on their behalf—they at least had a secure income. We have lost national insurance contributions and taxes to the public purse because of this policy. If I had more time, I would detail exactly how much we have lost.
Even the National Audit Office, which does not normally side with low-paid workers, has admitted that savings from privatisation have arisen from less favourable conditions for workers. These people take home only £70 a week. We are witnessing an increased casualised work force replacing a stable established one. As wages and conditions deteriorate, so do standards in the Health Service.
I dispute for other reasons the Government's claims about savings from competitive tendering. The exercise has never been properly examined. Staff time, preparing timetables, specifications, evaluating bids and monitoring contracts involve enormous costs which are not easily measured. The Government have not taken them into account. They have never tried to quantify that aspect of this costly experiment, in which public money, standards and livelihoods are at stake. nor have many district health authorities, although individual managers have recently said that 80 per cent. of their time is spent on competitive tendering.
I cannot conclude without talking about my experience of the laundry services in Halifax. The new Secretary of State for Health was the Minister for Health when we were forced to privatise our laundry services. Although we twice won the in-house tender—the second time by a margin of £250,000—after the 1983 election we were instructed to go out to tender and we are now putting out our laundry services. I shall invite the Secretary of State to come and see the disaster that he has created for us in Calderdale. We have no new linen for new babies, surgeons are complaining that there is no linen in the theatre and elderly patients are having to sit without underwear. That is disgraceful.
Privatisation in the Health Service has meant selling NHS workers' jobs to the lowest bidder. The only real savings come from job losses, cuts in wages and service standards, and poorer working conditions. One central point which is all too often passed over in debates about Health Service funding needs to be reinforced. It is that as

the largest employer in western Europe there is nothing outdated or imprudent about the NHS recognising its responsibilities to its work force. A civilised society has a duty to care not only for its sick and elderly, but for its carers. A system which sacrifices people to the demands and dictates of a market which has nothing to do with quality or caring and everything to do with shortchanging the workforce and patients on jobs and services is not only inhuman but inefficient, as the limited experience of introducing competition into the Health Service has shown. It is vital that we have a statement from the Government before the House goes into recess.

Sir Charles Morrison: I welcome the arrival of the recess, because it gives Ministers time to relax and ponder objectively what they have done, what they have not done, what they intend to do and what they should do. If they do all that, they should have a full and mentally exciting recess.
Foremost in the matters that Ministers should consider, particularly in the Treasury, the Department of Education and Science and the various Departments directly concerned, is the state of British scientific research and the research councils. It is extremely worrying that I should have read in an article in The Independent recently:
Britain is shutting down its science".
It is worrying to learn that already proposed cuts amount to almost £20 million for arable, horticultural and poultry research. It is worrying to learn that the Institute for Marine Biochemistry at Aberdeen faces outright closure and that the Institute for Oceanographic Sciences and Terrestrial Ecology may lose a quarter of its scientific staff. Those examples cover only a small area of science. There are many other research councils and establishments which are also facing considerable cuts.
The achievements of British scientists are remarkable, but if investment in research is cut, their ability and chances of maintaining that record of achievement in future will be enormously reduced. I understand that total expenditure on research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product has remained at its 1964 level in Britain, while in other countries, such as France, Germany, Japan and the United States, there has been a steady increase to the extent that the United Kingdom has now been overtaken.
Naturally, industry has a part to play, but industry-sponsored research is likely to be mostly market-orientated. In a science-based world, the Government have a growing responsibility to finance fundamental research. That may be relatively remote from the market and may not always produce results, but the benefits of fundamental research today will provide the basis for market-orientated research tomorrow and a new product for consumers the day after.
In his Dimbleby lecture this year, the president of the Royal Society, Sir George Porter, said:
There are no obvious limits to the advancement of knowledge or to the practical application of this knowledge to improving our health. wealth and happiness. In health, medical research has still much to do to reduce the suffering still with us. In wealth, rich as most of us are in material things compared with our ancestors, we have seen only the beginning of what will be available to us.
It is my sincere hope that a high proportion of what will be available will have been British-researched, British-developed and British-made. If it is so produced,


we shall be able to take pride in it. It will be good for exports, it will save imports and it will be good for the balance of payments. My brief plea to the Government tonight is that they should make available more money for research. The Government now claim that Britain is a rich country and becoming even richer. Our investment in science is a measure by which to judge that claim.

Mr. Frank Dobson: A number of interesting and important matters have been raised in the debate. I shall confine my remarks to three of them and, briefly, to the matter to which the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) referred—the Government's lack of investment in research.
Britain used to be renowned for inventing things that British industry was then extremely poor at developing. It appears that the Government have applied some Right-wing think tank to the task of eliminating that embarrassment and that its answer is not to do more to develop inventions but to cut research and thereby to stop the inventions occurring in the first place. That does not seem to be the most sensible way of developing a modern economy.
My second topic, housing, was referred to by Conservative and Opposition Members. The housing situation in this country is quite deplorable. We should remember one or two basic facts. In 1979, the year the Government came to power, 240,000 new homes were completed. Last year, only 202,000 new homes were completed. In the public sector—that is, council housing and housing association housing—104,000 homes were completed in 1979, compared to just 30,000 last year. It comes as no surprise to anybody with sense that one of the results of that has been a massive increase in homelessness. The figure was a little more than 50,000; it is now 112,000.
It is a sobering thought for all of us tonight that within a mile or two of the House more than 7,000 parents are trying to settle their children down for the night in bed-and-breakfast hotels, where all the members of a family are expected to live, wash, cook and eat in one room. It is a disgrace and a shame on all of us that that is happening. It is a shame on the Government, who produced a White Paper about the future of homelessness that did not even mention the word "homeless" or "homelessness".
All over the country tens of thousands of people are living in ever more crowded conditions because they cannot move out of their parental homes. Many newly married couples have to live with their parents and couples with children have to bring them up in their parents' homes. That is not a sound way to begin married life or to try to bring up children.
All over the country—I emphasise that—people who are not well-off are finding it more and more difficult to find somewhere to live at a price that they can afford. That is not a characteristic that is confined to the inner cities. Some of the greatest difficulties are to be found in rural areas, where massive house price increases combined with the sale of council housing are causing many villages— particularly attractive villages—to become no-go areas for

farm workers, for people who deliver the milk, for people who deliver the post, for the local bobby and for the local primary school teacher.
All over rural Britain, large numbers of people who are absolutely vital to the continuing organisation of the local community are finding it impossible to get anywhere to live because places to rent have disappeared and places for sale are priced far beyond their reach. Nowhere is that more true than in East Anglia, where there have been staggering increases in house prices. Under this Government, house prices have doubled in the country as a whole, and in East Anglia, London and the south-east they have more than trebled. While that remains the case, large numbers of the less well-off will find it more and more difficult to find somewhere to live.
I agree with the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) that our people have a right to the benefits of science and space, but they have rights more basic than that. They have a right to a decent home, and we should meet that basic need before we even start talking about science and space.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the appointment and dismissal of British members of the European Commission. The Prime Minister, who originally chose Lord Cockfield, has decided to dump him. In view of his opinions, I cannot say that I blame her, although it causes me to have doubts about her judgment in appointing him in the first place.
However, I unreservedly deplore the right hon. Lady's decision to dump Stanley Clinton Davis, the Labour nominee, who has served the country and the Community well since he was appointed three and a half years ago. He was fit to be appointed originally, and he is fit to continue in office. He has been caught between the upper millstone of the Prime Minister's spite against anyone who is not a member of the Tory party and the nether millstone of her desire to appoint her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) as the senior British commissioner.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that if my amendment had been selected, we could have had a statement from the Prime Minister explaining the criteria on which she has based her decision to hand this soft job, involving loyalty to the Common Market and not to this place, to her crony the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) at a salary of £90,000 a year and probably double that in expenses?

Mr. Dobson: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. Anything that would get the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to explain what went on and why she made the appointments would be a step forward. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks as "an excellent nomination". After paeans of praise that beggared belief, she challenged the Labour party
to put up names that are as distinguished."—[Official Report, 26 July 1988; Vol.138, c. 251.]
The word "distinguished" has several meanings. It can be used to describe something of conspicuous excellence but it can also be used to describe something that is differentiated from others by character. I can only believe that the Prime Minister was referring to the latter meaning.
In the light of the character and record of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks, no one could


justify his appointment. He resigned from the Cabinet in disgrace during the Westland scandal. The actions for which he was responsible were described as "outrageous" and "reprehensible" by the Select Committee on Defence, on which the Conservative majority believed its duty to Parliament and the people to be above its duty to its party.
The Select Committee's report said:
The disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter without his permission was an improper act.
That was a charge of impropriety. The report said:
Mr. Brittan, a Queen's Counsel, would have been aware of the … confidentiality of Law Officers' advice".
That was a charge of unprofessional conduct.
The Select Committee said:
Only by releasing the information unattributably could the disclosure be limited to those parts of the letter that damaged Mr. Heseltine.
That was a charge, it would appear, of deception.
When asked by the Select Committee about all those things, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks refused to answer. The Committee was referring to the partial disclosure of information of the same degree of security confidentiality as that released by Mr. Clive Ponting. For that, Mr. Ponting fetched up at the Old Bailey. It now appears that for the same action the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks has fetched up in Brussels on £95,000 per year. There seems some difference in the treatment given to those people.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend remember that Mr. Ponting sent his piece of paper to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who then passed it on to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—it did not go outside those circles—whereas the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) was responsible for authorising his press secretary to ring the Press Association?

Mr. Dobson: As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) behaved as we all should, honourably.
If the Prime Minister challenges the Labour party to produce someone with that sort of record as the Labour nominee, I am afraid that we will be unable to meet her challenge. We do not have anyone with such a scandalous record in public office. We do not have anyone on our side who has been so comprehensively described, one might almost say blackguarded, by a Select Committee.
However, the members of the Select Committee were decent and careful people, and stated in the last paragraph of their report:
As far as individuals are concerned, we have made our best judgments on the evidence before us. If anyone feels himself or herself to have been traduced by our findings, we are prepared at any stage to take oral or written evidence, in public or in private, from anyone involved in the events we have examined. If that evidence leads us to modify our conclusions, we will of course make a further report to the House.
I understand from the Clerk to the Select Committee on Defence that no person asked to be heard further or asked that further evidence should be considered either in public or in private. Presumably the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks accepts as reasonable the charges levelled against him by the Select Committee.
There are those who say that it was not the fault of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks and that in a sense he was behaving decently because he was, in the American phrase, "taking the rap". But who was he

taking the rap for? If one reads the Select Committee's report, the answer appears to be, for the person in charge of the Prime Minister's office. I know that some of my hon. Friends have suggested that that is Mr. Bernard Ingham, but I do not think that he is that important. I think that the Prime Minister is in charge of the Prime Minister's office.
The fact is that the Prime Minister was responsible for all the wrongdoing listed in that report and that she remains personally responsible. That is why many people is this country, a large number of Opposition Members in public and a substantial number of Conservative Members in private will say that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks is getting his money and has got his appointment because he agreed to pay, and has paid, the price of covering up the Prime Minister's involvement in all those disgraceful events.
In those circumstances, what can we say? One thing that we can say is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is either the fall guy or that he is wicked because what is outlined in the report is wickedness in public life by any standards. We do not think that somebody who can reasonably be described a wicked and who has not disputed that should be appointed; nor do we think that somebody who has been a fall guy for the Prime Minister should be appointed.

Mr. Latham: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that before he made that personal attack on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) who is a Back Bencher, and called him "wicked", he gave him notice that he was going to do so?

Mr. Dobson: I put a note on the board this morning.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Just before this speech.

Mr. Dobson: No, I did not do that just before my speech. I put a note on the board this morning in Norman Shaw north.

Mr. Deputy Speakcr: I have been reflecting carefully on the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If he is saying that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) is wicked, that is an expression which Mr. Speaker would not accept. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw it and think carefully of an alternative form of words.

Mr. Dobson: If "wicked" is out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, behaviour which is "outrageous" and "re-prehensible"—that is a quotation from the Select Committee on Defence—must be in order, because I am entitled to quote from the Select Committee on Defence. I will stick by that. Either the behaviour was "outrageous" and "reprehensible" and the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks should not be appointed, or he was covering up for the Prime Minister and she should not stay in office.
If we are to have a reputable Parliament, we must have people who report and explain themselves to this Parliament. Perhaps the best development that could come out of this whole affair would be for us to adopt the procedures and attitudes of the American Congress and ensure that any further nominees for important public office would have to appear before Select Committees of this House at which both the Government and they themselves would have to justify their appointment.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Having added up, I find that I am the 18th speaker in this relatively short debate. We have had many speeches and nobody seems to be very much against the idea of a holiday, although one or two do. I think that we have earned a holiday and I wish everybody in the House a good holiday when we rise.
I shall do my best to answer the points that have been raised, but I must deal with each one briefly and I must go at a pretty fast pace if I am to do so.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who courteously sent me a note because he thought that he might not be back—I am delighted to see him in his place—is a great and internationally recognised expert on disabled people. I think that he would be the first to admit that the Government's record of increasing assistance to disabled people by over 80 per cent. in real terms is a pretty good record by any standards.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about the disability study carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I have checked, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that study was sent to the printers as soon as it was ready. It will be published in early September. There has been no unnecessary delay on it.
We are making good progress in the staged implementation of the Disabled Services, Consultation and Representation Act 1986, and have already implemented sections 4, 5, 6, 8(1), 9 and 10 and are currently addressing section 7.
My hon. Friends the Members for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) all raised in their different ways the Government's commitment to research. I shall make some general remarks about that, but will deal first with the fast breeder reactor and the HOTOL project. I recognise the considerable knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant in these matters. It is greater than mine. In the relatively short time when I was junior Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry and took part in some of the decisions on our research projects, I found them some of the most difficult decisions because in the end they are always decisions about priorities and about choosing between one thing and another. From my experience, it is sometimes very difficult to make that choice.
The Governmnt's decision to cut the funding for the fast breeder reactor programme was based on the fact that the commercial requirement for fast reactors in the United Kingdom is likely to be some decades way. The Government's aim was to obtain a position in that technology for this country, but at an economic cost.
The Government have concluded that any further development of HOTOL must take place on the basis of international collaboration. We will support efforts by United Kingdom companies to find suitable collaborators, but will not provide further financial support in the foreseeable future. A memorandum has been sent to their Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology in response to its report on United Kingdom space policy. Copies of that memorandum have been placed in the Library today.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot possibly give way to anyone, as I have only just enough time to finish.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) rightly raised the subject of prisons, especially Glenochil. It is regrettable that a small number of inmates continue to behave in a disruptive manner in a modern establishment with good facilities. The governor is moving fast towards normalising the regime for the large majority of inmates, but control must remain firmly in the hands of the governor and staff. There are 600 new prison places in Scotland and more staff have been and continue to be recruited. The White Paper, "Custody and Care", published in March, highlights the importance of security and control as well as the positive opportunities for inmates, and points the way forward to improvements in the running of Scottish penal establishments for the benefit of both staff and inmates. Nevertheless, I recognise that this is a matter of great concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clywd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) referred to abuses of bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Rhyl. The Government are especially worried about the excessive and increasing cost of the use of such accommodation. We recognise the problems of seaside resorts where accommodation is used by non-local people, and we shall consider that aspect as part of the review of legislation on homelessness.
The hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) both referred to gazumping, an important problem which causes great concern but which it less easy of solution than the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth suggested. All the expert bodies that have examined the matter—the Law Commission in 1975, the Conveyancing Committee in 1985 and the Conveyancing Standing Committee in recent reports—have agreed that legislation is not the answer. The answer lies in changes in practices and attitudes.
The Conveyancing Standing Committee has suggested ways in which practices could be changed so as to lessen or eliminate the risk of gazumping. The Government hope that buyers and sellers of houses and those advising them will give careful consideration to the suggestion made by the standing committee. That is why we believe that a voluntary approach is best, certainly in present circumstances. As the Member for Norwich, South pointed out, the practice in Scotland could be adopted on a voluntary basis in England and Wales and would make the problem less difficult than it otherwise might be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) raised a number of issues. The Government's proposals for legislation in relation to artificial reproduction and the use of human embryos are set out in the White Paper published last November, which was fully debated in both Houses earlier this year. We have made clear our intention to legislate in this Parliament, although my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech, so I cannot say any more than that.
I said something about the Barlow Clowes affair during business questions. We are determined that the matter should be examined fully and as quickly as is consistent with thoroughness. The Government are fully aware of the distress and hardship caused, and have great sympathy with those who have suffered. While so many issues are


unresolved, however, I must emphasise that the Government do not take it for granted that they will have to accept any liability to investors.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South also referred to the shortage of housing in Norwich and East Anglia. The Government fully share the concern for the homeless, and have made an extra £74 million available since last November, targeted on authorities bearing the brunt of the problem. Our concern is compounded by the number of empty properties. Authorities have more than 112,000 empty properties, 28,000, or 25 per cent., of which have been unoccupied for more than a year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) raised some important questions about the Barlow Clowes affair, to which I have already referred. He also spoke of the roads programme. I appreciate the frustration of being stuck in a traffic jam and assuming that it is all the fault of the Government. Nevertheless, we have some 350 schemes in the present programme with a total value of more than £5 billion and the roads vote provision is more than than £1 billion for the first time. For new construction, our aim is to start within the year all the planned schemes that are now ready. We hope to keep motorway delays to a minimum by careful planning, the use of lane rental contracts and mobile lane closures.
As my hon. Friend knows, the aim of the RAWP formula is to allocate resources in such a way as to ensure, over time, equal opportunity of access to health care for people in equal need by reducing historical disparities and responding to population changes. The National Health Service Management Board has explored the scope for improving the way in which the current formula measures relative need across the country. The Government will consider the resulting recommendations in the context of the wider review of the National Health Service. I assure my hon. Friend that his comments will be drawn to the attention of the Minister, as I appreciate the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) was courteous enough to tell me that he had to leave for Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman and the leader of his party will know, the debate following this one will deal in more detail with industry in Northern Ireland, so I shall not say anything further at this stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), in a commendably brief speech which was nevertheless important and worthy of consideration by an audience wider than that in the House today, described problems of development in and around his constituency. The Government fully recognise the difficulties to which he referred. He was wise to raise the subject of the green belt. The Government are determined to keep the green belt, so there is no change of policy in that regard. Government policy is to encourage development wherever possible in the inner cities and on recycled land, which is an increasing part of the development pattern in this country, although there are still difficulties.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) was among those who were not keen to have a long recess. I appreciate his view and I assure him that Ministers do not have anything like the whole period in recess.

Mr. Tony Banks: Nor do Back Benchers.

Mr. Wakeham: I fully recognise that, although I see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) sitting on the Opposition Front Bench in a very relaxed manner and wish him a happy holiday.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East referred to practices in the House. I can only say that the current practices seem generally acceptable, although not entirely so. The Select Committee on Procedure could consider the matter again if necessary.
The decision to electrify the east midlands line is a commercial one for British Rail. Electrification would not make the service faster, but British Rail is continuing to improve the high-speed diesel service on that line.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised a number of issues, originally with a European flavour but going on to wider matters. The hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for getting on with the European Communities (Amendment) Bill makes me somewhat cautious and leads me to believe that I was right to put that into the programme for the overspill Session, although I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be ingenious enough to find ways to raise most of the issues that he wishes to explore.
The hon. Member for Newham, South and others talked about the European commissioners and asked whether there would be a debate on the subject. There is plenty of time for such a debate. If the Opposition want to debate the matter, various courses are available to them. The new commissioners will not take office until 1 January 1989.
The hon. Member for Newham, South referred also to matters of significance and importance at the beginning of 1986. He knows perfectly well what I am about to say. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, she gave a full account of the events surrounding the disclosure of the then Solicitor-General's letter on 6 January 1986, in her statement on 23 January and in her speech on 27 January. We have nothing to add to that except to deplore in the strongest terms the unwarranted attacks on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and on civil servants who cannot reply. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised during the recess to read the statements of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to come better informed to debates on the next occasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 29th July, do adjourn until Wednesday 19th October.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c).

HOUSING

That the draft Grants by Local Housing Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contributions) (No. 2) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 8th July 1988, be approved.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 11th July 1988, be approved.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 11th July 1988, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Corneal Tissue (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 28th June 1988, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Economy)

Mr. James Molyneaux: First, I note with appreciation the presence on the Treasury Bench of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who has responsibilities for economic development. Their attendance shows that they realise that the future of the two major engineering industries are crucial to Northern Ireland in terms of jobs. They are important to the employees of the two undertakings and to those who are employed in factories in Great Britain. I trust that the presence of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State means that they are willing to listen, and having done so perhaps to grant a stay of execution.
It can be said that there is widespread recognition of the facts of life in this context by those who occupy the Opposition Front Bench, and by others elsewhere in the House. Up to that point in our consideration, there is common ground. Unfortunately, from then on there is divergence. Earlier today at Question Time, the Under-Secretary of State asserted that privatisation had been good for 17 major undertakings in Great Britain. It might have been an underestimate. My research suggests that about 28 undertakings have been privatised, but I shall not quarrel with the Minister about that.
I am sure that it will be accepted that the majority on the list could be classified as coming within what we might call the service sector. These undertakings have an advantage because they have, in effect, a captive market. Included in this category are Associated British Ports, the British Airports Authority, British Airways, British Gas and British Petroleum. These undertakings have a multitude of customers, but by the nature of their products Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff have lists of potential customers that reach single figures only.
Of the other privatised companies to which I have not referred, some may fail. If they do so, their skilled employees will be mopped up by other industries. Unfortunately, that could not and would not happen in Northern Ireland. If I might borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, there is no alternative. That is why the Government must be ultra-careful in making their decisions.
Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), who is my party's spokesman on trade and industry, told the House that we in the Ulster Unionist


party have no particular hang-ups in the arguments over the merits of privatisation. We have always preferred to judge each case on its merits. Perhaps I have already implied that in service industries great benefits probably accrue from a reduction in bureaucracy. There is much to be said for making a service-type industry more responsive to its customers.
A geographically isolated shipyard and aircraft factory do not fall into that category. In Belfast, Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers plc provide the main industrial base. The stark fact is that there is no substitute or replacement to be found for either or both in Northern Ireland. It is fair to say that the Labour Government of the 1970s recognised that. For that reason they resisted all pressures to include Harland and Wolff in British Shipbuilders and Short Brothers in British Aerospace. The then Government's fear was that, when order books became slim, the two Belfast limbs would be the first to get the chop.
The memoirs of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) recount the discussions on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman concluded that, if Shorts had then been included in British Aerospace, the Belfast works would probably have been closed years ago. The right hon. Gentleman's successor, who is now Lord Mason, took a similarly robust view of the shipyard and the aircraft factory. They were both ably and strongly supported by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who had direct responsibilities and who withstood all the pressures throughout the controversy, many of which were coming from his right hon. and hon. Friends.
I do not suggest or imply that the present Secretary of State is any less robust than his predecessors. I hope that he will be equally realistic. Ten or 12 years later, who can say that the Ministers of the 1970s were mistaken? In the interval, we have seen free enterprise multinationals such as ICI, Courtaulds and British Enkalon amputate their Northern Ireland limbs when confronted with a shrinkage in world markets. In those years there was an ugly and sinister tendency on the part of national and multinational companies to close down their Ulster factory. They did so because it was in competition with other of their factories nearer to their central base and not because it was unprofitable. It would be less than truthful to suggest that such sharp practices have been snuffed out or discontinued. Like it or not, they will recur.
In the light of the bitter experience of the past 12 years, how could the Under-Secretary of State say:
there is no future for a company that is supported by Government. The future lies in the private sector, where there is enterprise and the opportunity of growth."—[Official Report,21 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 1304.]
If the Government's approach to Shorts is based on that philosophy, there can only be disaster ahead. If Shorts is to be expected to stand on its own feet, it is being singled out for the chop.
At Question Time today, when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) asked whether it was not true that all other aircraft manufacturers in the world were dependent on Government subsidies in one form or another, the Minister—perhaps misunderstanding the question—was unable to give a very convincing answer. I have a clear duty to repeat my hon. Friend's question to the Secretary of State and his ministerial team: do they know of any major aeroplane maker anywhere in the world that is not propped up by the state in which it is

situated? Do they know, for that matter, of any aircraft that has made a profit for its makers? I make an earnest plea to the Secretary of State and his colleagues to rid themselves of the notion that Shorts alone in the world, unlike all its rivals, can stand up to state-subsidised competition elsewhere.
Common sense dictates that such an experiment will fail, simply because the whole judgment is flawed. I cannot believe that the present Secretary of State would knowingly put his hand to an instrument of economic destruction that will undoubtedly bring ruin and misery to an entire community.

Mr. John Hume: The three industries under discussion—Shorts, Harland and Wolff and the Northern Ireland electricity service—have not endeared themselves to my constituents by their employment practices. But we are not interested in the doctrine of "an eye for an eye", because that leaves everyone blind. The skills and technology that those three industries represent are essential to the future of all the people of Northern Ireland, and I wish to support and protect the maintenance and development of that technology and those skills.
The Government have repeatedly sought to achieve agreement between the parties in Northern Ireland, and I support them in that endeavour: this is one issue on which we are entirely agreed. I therefore ask the Government to encourage such agreement by rewarding it.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I wish to suport what has already been said by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), and to echo what has been said by the hon. Member for Londonderry——

Mr. Hume: Foyle.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Not Strangford.

Mr. Kilfedder: Yes, I recall that Mr. Speaker mistook the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) for the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) during Question Time.
I wish briefly to urge the Government to abandon their plan to privatise Shorts. This company has contributed enormously to technology in Northern Ireland, and if the plan goes ahead to sell it, in whole or in part, it will imperil the company's future. When the sale was announced last week, it was clear that if it went ahead the industrial vultures would descend on this company that has contributed so much, pick the bones bare and then depart. The Government say that they will protect the company because they will sell it if possible to a single buyer, but we have experience of such speculators in other parts of the United Kingdom. A buyer will come along, but he will sell what is not profitable and keep what is. I fear that, at the end of the day, despite the Government's grand words, the company and the work force will suffer.
Shorts employs 7,500 people. That is a colossal number of jobs, vital to Northern Ireland. To those jobs can be added the jobs of all those working in other companies directly linked to Shorts. There are also the jobs of people who work in shops that supply goods to the families of Shorts' workers, and there are the families themselves.
It was nauseating to hear the unctuous words of the Minister when he made the announcement, pretending that the firm and its large work force would benefit from privatisation. I cannot see how all that work force will be maintained by a speculator who will come along to make a quick profit. As a consequence, Northern Ireland will lose the high technology that Shorts generates. Its excellent design team will be at risk. The Ulster economy, as we all know—it has been repeated often enough in the Chamber —is fragile, and such a blow will have lasting unfortunate consequences for our part of the United Kingdom.
Those unfortunate consequences, however, will not be confined to Northern Ireland. Hon. Members from Great Britain should remember that Shorts provides benefits for this part of the United Kingdom as well. The reduction in the size of the company and its work force will affect engineering firms in England that are engaged on contract for Shorts.
It has been argued that privatisation has been a success in England. That may be so, and I would not argue otherwise, but there is no comparison between the economic position in Britain—certainly in the south-east of England, where all the wealth seems to accumulate— and that in Ulster. I am not a slave to ideology, and I have no political objection to privatisation. My argument is against the privatisation of Shorts at this time and in the foreseeable future, especially in view of the vile campaign of terror being waged by the IRA.
For 20 years the IRA has sought to destroy the Northern Ireland economy, just as it sought to destroy lives and to mutilate members of the population. It has undoubtedly frightened away many potential investors, and perhaps, I regret to say, some of those who formerly provided employment in the Province. In my constituency, a building contractor—part of a worldwide concern, with its headquarters in Great Britain—abandoned work on which it was engaged in Palace barracks, Holywood, as a result of IRA threats.
I fear that the Government's announcement will appear to be a capitulation to the IRA campaign. It certainly helps the propaganda campaign—I want to emphasise that— which has been skilfully and persistently waged by the IRA and its sympathisers, particularly in the United States, against Shorts and other companies in Northern Ireland. They would love to see Northern Ireland's economy undermined, because they would then be well on their way to the destruction of that part of the United Kingdom.
Bearing in mind the courage, fortitude and restraint of the hard-working and conscientious people of Northern Ireland, the Government should have told them that they will stand shoulder to shoulder with them; that, no matter what they say and do politically in the rest of the United Kingdom, they will make sure that they in no way endanger Northern Ireland's economy and put at risk everything that has been done to build up and maintain that fragile economy. Sadly, the Government prefer to force on the people of Northern Ireland, at a bad and dangerous time, their privatisation policy, which will unfortunately have bitter consequences.
The propaganda campaign waged by the IRA against Shorts has also been waged against the Belfast shipyard. I and my colleagues in the House have paid tribute to the work force. It is composed of hard-working and dedicated

people. It is my duty, and that of my colleagues, to fight for them, their jobs and the rights of their families. It is tragic that the Government also wish to privatise Harland and Wolff now.
I want to make a plea to the Government—although I am sad to say that it will probably be rejected out of hand by Ministers whose commitment is not to Northern Ireland jobs, as it should be. I plead with them to ensure that Shorts and Harland and Wolff, two great and major firms, remain within the public sector. I know that in making that plea I have the support of all people in Northern Ireland, regardless of religion and political beliefs.
The hon. Member for Foyle, referred to the work force in those two companies. I have already said that I and my colleagues are prepared to go to the United States with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to fight for jobs, not just for Shorts, and not just in Loyalist but in Nationalist areas. Our concern is to ensure that prosperity is restored to Northern Ireland and that the terrorists do not succeed in their vile and obscene campaign.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: There are times when the rights of the people must take precedence over all other considerations. The time has now arrived when the Government must take stock of their privatisation policy in Northern Ireland and examine the social consequences of such policies on the small regional economy of the Province.
It is highly irresponsible at this time for the Government to announce privatisation plans for Shorts and Harland and Wolff. Such announcements are perceived by the population as further evidence of the Government's intention to withdraw from Northern Ireland, which can do nothing for political and economic stability and will only fuel the fires of insurrection. In addition, such decisions would be disastrous from a social and humanitarian point of view.
It is a matter of record and public disquiet that such expansion as has occurred recently has been confined to the south-east of England. But, as every hon. Member knows, there has been little sign of any significant improvement elsewhere within the United Kingdom. The recent depressing trade figures point to the folly of following policies which favour one part of the kingdom at the expense of the others.
The Government cannot stand aloof and opt out of their responsibilities to Northern Ireland, which is considered to be one of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom.
In taking my stand tonight specifically in defence of Shorts, I ask the Government to re-examine, logically and objectively, their decision to privatise that most dynamic company in the aircraft construction and allied industries.
Shorts contributed greatly to the defeat of Nazi Germany by its superhuman efforts in the production of battle line aircraft which were renowned throughout the world for their performance and reliability in destroying strategic targets in enemy territory.
The contribution of Shorts to the commercial side of the aviation industry is also exemplary, going as far back as 1909, when a Short biplane won the Daily Mail award for the first British aircraft to fly a circular mile. The big flying boats produced for Imperial Airways opened up the


air routes to Australia and the far east. Today we have the renowned Skyvan and the 360, which has been adopted by more than 30 carriers worldwide.
Selling that most valuable public asset will be seen as a betrayal of the skill and innovation of the aerospace and engineering industry in Northern Ireland. The effects on the engineering industry and the local economy will be catastrophic. It will also affect many parts of the United Kingdom where engineering companies engage in contract work for Shorts.
The Government say that they wish to privatise Shorts because of financial losses, but the level of loss is not as great as the Government are making out. Last year there was a loss of £47 million, but £25 million of that was simply the repayment of loans. Because of those debts the interest charges will inevitably increase each year, and that will be exacerbated by the higher interest rates charged by outside agencies compared with the cost of Government grants or low interest loans.
It must also be appreciated that substantial losses were in part due to underfunding and cuts in Ministry of Defence expenditure. I would respectfully point out to the Government that most aircraft manufacturers throughout the world are in receipt of visible or invisible Government subsidies. It is generally recognised that high technology products require high investment to make them profitable. That is borne out by the Dutch Government supporting Fokker and America supporting Boeing.
What is needed now is a commitment from the Government to Shorts, since there is no way in which investment from within or outside the Province could compensate for the large-scale reduction in employment that would occur if the company were privatised.
We particularly need a commitment to the aircraft manufacturing sector and support for the new FJX aircraft as a worthy replacement for the SD3. It is absolutely essential that that project is fully supported if Shorts is to continue as a design/engineering aircraft manufacturer, particularly as the company has the highest concentration of research and design skills in Northern Ireland and has trained the largest number of skilled apprentices.
Contract work has provided thousands of additional jobs in other parts of the United Kingdom and other unemployment blackspots in the Province. Privatisation would deal a blow to the equal opportunities programme which Shorts has embarked upon. Such a programme cannot be successful if jobs are at a premium under privatisation.
I contend that privatisation is totally unsuitable to a small, deprived economy such as that in Northern Ireland, which is already suffering from perhaps the worst unemployment in the United Kingdom. No amount of small, transnational operations on green field sites can replace Shorts at the heart of the engineering industry. The survival of Shorts is essential to the survival of the Northern Ireland economy. Without it, we shall become an industrial wasteland, and any small, modest recovery already achieved will be wiped out and reversed.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Government are convinced of the correctness of their policies and believe that they should press ahead with them despite our opposition, but they must accept that their

policies are divisive. They may think that in the end they will be able to overcome that, and people will see the good that they believe they are doing. But their policies are hated by working-class people in my constituency. Applying those policies to Northern Ireland, which has a divided society and sectarian battles and clashes, is an utter disgrace. The Government should respond to the market in which they seek to operate their policies. If there is a case for sticking with or returning to some past consensus or moving towards some improvement, that case is within Northern Ireland.
Different policies need to be directed to the Irish question than to England, Wales and Scotland. Although I oppose them in a more traditional battle, the only good that can result from the Government's policies of privatising electricity, Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff is that it will bind together some of the different factions in Northern Ireland. As I have said, they may be able to produce some unity among the different parties and individuals who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, and the political parties not represented in the House. People are being directed to fighting class politics in which working-class interests are dominant.
I recall a delegation that came over from Strabane and included representatives of Sinn Fein, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists, Independents and others. They were here because of the flood damage in Strabane and they wanted the Government to provide funds to deal with it. Problems of that nature overcome the sectarian divide because key economic and social questions have to be faced. I ask the Government to back off from the policies they are using and to do something about uniting Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) on drawing first place in the ballot for debates on the Consolidated Fund. I am sure that we all agree that it is the best position in the list. I thank the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for being present on the Government Front Bench to reply to this short debate. It shows that he considers of paramount importance the economy of Ireland and the possible privatisation of the three industries that have been discussed. If he is to solve his other problems in the Province, the economy and the growth in the economy in Northern Ireland must be tackled successfully.
It is significant that, despite the geographical differences between my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, they are at one on the need to maintain Shorts within the public sector and on the need to protect jobs. Perhaps that is the first sign of the agreement between party leaders that the Secretary of State has been trying to achieve during the past few years. Perhaps he should seize the first small fruit of consent and build upon it so that that agreement can be used to build agreement in other aspects of political and economic life in Northern Ireland.
The official Opposition, together with other Opposition parties, met representatives of the work force of Short Brothers who made absolutely clear their opposition to privatisation. They will fight the proposals to privatise the company and they feel that if the company is privatised, rather than providing the guarantees of job security, to which the Under-Secretary of State referred on previous


occasions, privatisation will be the thin end of the wedge and the Government will shed responsibility not only for the companies but for the economy of the Province, and closure and redundancy will inevitably result. They are strongly opposed to privatisation and certainly the Opposition have pledged their wholehearted support to them in their opposition to privatisation.
It would be churlish of me not to have due regard to the comparative improvement in the economy of Northern Ireland during the past 18 months or two years. As the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State have told us on previous occasions, during 1987–88 unemployment fell, and it continues to fall. Congratulations are due to them for that. I also give due respect and credit to the enterprise schemes which are being operated in Northern Ireland and the encouragement which the Government continue to give to inward investment in the Province. We all agree that there is a desperate need not only to sustain existing jobs, but to attract new jobs into Northern Ireland. We welcome without hesitation those improvements.
As I have said on previous occasions, it is as well to remember that industrial productivity in Northern Ireland is still substantially below what it was in the early 1980s. The number of people unemployed is substantially higher than it was in 1978. We should remember that the number of new jobs created last year fell far below the reduction in unemployment. Thus, the fall in unemployment was produced not by job creation but by the creation of new aid schemes, migration from the Province and the fall in the number of school leavers. As I have said, it must be borne in mind that industrial production is static and is still at or below the level it was in 1981.
Industrial production in Northern Ireland has remained static, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom it has grown by 12 per cent. since 1981. It is as well to remember that manufacturing in Northern Ireland is dominated by two giants—Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff. Of 90,000 manufacturing jobs, 11,000 are directly associated with Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff and perhaps a third—30,000 manufacturing jobs —are directly or indirectly related to those two giants. If they were threatened with closure, that would have a dramatic effect on unemployment in the Province. If, by some disaster, they closed, 20,000 or 30,000 jobs in Northern Ireland could be lost. Furthermore, subcontracting jobs in Great Britain would be at risk.
We would all agree that Harland and Wolff has made great strides in improving efficiency and productivity over the past few years, and that it has been innovative in using the latest computer-designed techniques for designing ships. The company can now compete, expecially in the high technology sector of shipbuilding, with any other in the world. Management and workers have worked together in a way that can serve as an example to any other company in the United Kingdom. Together they have improved productivity and agreed on a common goal for the company—to ensure its survival and to make it as competitive as possible. As a consequence they have managed to reduce losses per man—unfortunately, they are not profits per man—to one third of the United Kingdom shipbuilding average, and losses per man at the

company are now comparable with those of any other shipbuilding yard in the world. These are great steps forward by Harland and Wolff.
A few months ago there was a great sense of anticipation that the company, having made sacrifices and lost jobs in recent years, would achieve continuity into the early 1990s with the advent of Ravi Tikkoo. It was anticipated that the yard could be kept going and that jobs in it could be held at around 3,000. We all thought that if Mr. Tikkoo's concept of the Ultimate Dream was viable and the vessel could be built at Harland and Wolff, it should be.
Some questions must be answered. First, can Harland and Wolff build the ship? The company says that it can. Secondly, can there be an agreement on its price? Again, it appears that Harland and Wolff and Mr. Tikkoo can agree on that. So those two questions have been answered by the company, but the next two must be answered by the Government—we desperately want these answers. Can Mr. Tikkoo's company be assured that normal export credit guarantees will be available in this case? We need a yes or no answer to that, not prevarication. Next, if a contract were signed, would it receive support under the sixth directive of the EEC? Again, that needs answering with a yes or no, not with prevarication.
Instead of providing direct answers, the Government have tried to concentrate on the ownership of the yard. We now face the charade of the potential customer, Ravi Tikkoo, turning into a potential buyer, purely because the Government see this as an opportunity of ridding themselves of a loss-making shipyard. The Government should stop playing this game and answer the two questions I have asked.
I have other questions for the Secretary of State about the Ultimate Dream order. Why are discussions about the Ultimate Dream order and about the sale of the yard now so inextricably linked? What is the current state of those discussions? When will the Government come clean about them, and about their results?
Short Brothers has been the main topic of this debate. As we all know, a "For Sale" notice has just been slapped on it, which is not too surprising in the light of the Government's privatisation proposals for the rest of the United Kingdom, or of the track record of the new chairman of Short Brothers, Mr. Rodney Lund. He has the unique distinction in the aerospace industry of knowing nothing about it. That seems unfair to Short Brothers, as most aerospace companies throughout the world like to have people in charge, and in charge of their negotiations, who have vision and who know something about the industry over which they exercise control.
Short Brothers, which is in the forefront of the aerospace industry, now has a chairman who knows little about it. What he does have is a track record of privatisation. We are driven inescapably to the conclusion that he has been appointed for his skills in that direction and for his familiarity with the City. Privatisation and the possible break-up of the yard seems to have been in the forefront of the minds of the people who appointed this gentleman to his present position——

Mr. Kevin McNamara: ; Yard? We are talking about Short Brothers now.

Mr. Marshall: I apologise if I gave the impression that I was referring to Harland and Wolff. The chairman and


managing director of Harland and Wolff have our confidence. I wish we could say the same of the higher management of Short Brothers.
We have noted the Minister's repeated assertion that, if the company is privatised, the Government want it to remain as a whole. In our view, which is shared by the shop stewards, that position is untenable. If the company is privatised as a whole, we are convinced that the buyer will be interested in only one part of it—the missiles section. The future of the other two sections—aircraft and aero-structures—would be insecure. If the company is sold, we should like a guarantee that the buyer will keep it as a whole and that jobs will be guaranteed for perhaps five or six years.
Ministers appear to have misunderstood what Harland and Wolff and Shorts symbolise to the people of Northern Ireland. They are regarded as symbols of the Government's continued commitment to the economy of the north of Ireland. Rightly or wrongly, the recently announced decisions to privatise the companies are regarded by a substantial number of people as the Government's intention to withdraw, perhaps not fully, from the economy of Northern Ireland and as a shot across the bows to show that the level of support given in the past cannot continue indefinitely.
The debate gives the Secretary of State an opportunity to nail those allegations as lies and to say that the Government will continue to support the economy of Northern Ireland and Harland and Wolff and Shorts. The best way of showing that determination and giving those guarantees is to do away with the nonsense of privatisation, accept that Harland and Wolff and Shorts should remain in the public sector and offer continued hope of prosperity to Belfast and Northern Ireland as a whole.

The Secretary of State for Northem Ireland (Mr. Tom King): The subject for the debate chosen by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is the economy of Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the future of Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff. The House will therefore understand if I begin by discussing the economy of Northern Ireland.
I have two rather contrary messages to deliver. First, I enormously welcome the debate. Thank goodness hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have expressed interest in economic issues. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley—there is no point in being churlish because it would be rather like a vicar berating the congregation for being too small—on his initiative in launching the debate.
I appreciate very much the comments by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and others. They correctly identified my presence as being not only symbolic but a sign of the close personal interest that I have taken—as has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers)—in the economy of the Province. We were delighted to be joined by other hon. Members, who showed their interest in the subject.
Secondly, having made those tolerably friendly remarks, I have found this the most appallingly depressing debate. I do not think that I have ever listened to so many speeches with which I profoundly disagreed. In certain

respects I resented them, and in others they were an insult to the skills, ability and industry of the people of Northern Ireland, who have shown their abilities to triumph over all the problems of the Province. They have not come pleading with begging bowls, saying, "We have not a hope of competing in world markets unless we receive special assistance and twice as much subsidy as anyone else."
Anyone who pays a visit to Northern Ireland will see its abilities and achievements. Its people do not moan about the disadvantages they face. They are succeeding and earning a worldwide reputation because of their hard work, determination and skill. I have the deepest admiration—it is often defined as the work ethnic that exists in many parts of the Province—for the inventive-ness, scientific skills, education achievements and qualifications of many people in Northern Ireland, which is why its economy has recently moved forward in so many respects.
The economy in Northern Ireland has suffered from high unemployment. When l heard the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) say that there was little sign of improvement, I thought that he was selling Northern Ireland short. I have recently received the review of the Trustee Savings bank for Northern Ireland. It is appropriate to quote from its document because it was in the public sector but is now in the private sector. I hope that its review will not immediately be regarded by hon. Members as discredited. It mentions the present position rather differently from the miserable language that we heard in the debate.
The review says that the steady growth of the United Kingdom economy—which has out-performed other European countries and, in many respects, the United States and Japan—has, although it has taken longer to arrive, had an impact on Northern Ireland. It further says:
Evidence from the most recent CBI Business Surveys, however, indicates a degree of optimism.
It says that there is
Considerable business confidence … Capacity utilisation remains good and there is little evidence of capacity constraints despite growing local, national export demand … Both CBI and PA Management surveys of investment intentions indicate that strong capital investment is taking place and is likely to continue over the coming year … The CBI report positive investment plans across manufacturing and service industries and PA attribute the healthy manufacturing investment outlook to buoyant demand, increased order books and the success of past capital investment.
Listening to hon. Members, I wondered whether they had recently visited the Province or whether they were aware of what is going on there.
Although the figures given by the hon. Member for Leicester, South were correct, I genuinely believe that the continuing falls in unemployment are being reflected in an increase in employment. After the debate, I shall show the hon. Gentleman an interesting graph in the Trustee Savings bank review, which tends to confirm the unemployment decline. In September 1986, unemployment reached 135,000. As a previous Secretary of State for Employment in England and Wales, I came to the Province determined to do my best to help employment in Northern Ireland. As we stand here now, unemployment is down to 115,000. That is last month's figure. It is confirmation not of a continuing decline but of the improvement that every hon. Member welcomes.
I see the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) present. I am sure that he will accept that there is a spirit of greater


confidence in what he would call Derry. There is greater confidence in the Province in future economic prospects and employment. In addressing the real problems, we should not sell the Province short. We should not underrate the real achievements of many people who in the past year have been recruiting, investing, scoring export successes and expanding their businesses. In that improvement lies one of the best hopes for the Province.

Mr. Kilfedder: I wish to make it clear that I resent the arrogant words of the Secretary of State, who queried whether Unionist Members—I assume he also included the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—ever visit the Province. We live there and are committed to it. My speech was restricted to the two giant industries—Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff. I referred to the fragile economy of Northern Ireland. Is the Secretary of State saying that the economy is not fragile? Did he meet the workers at Shorts? Did he speak to those workers, or did he speak only to the management? Apparently he thinks that he is speaking for everyone in Northern Ireland. We live there and meet the people every weekend when we go home. The Secretary of State should understand that people in Northern Ireland resent anyone who expects the Ulster people to shout "bwana" to the Secretary of State in his cantonment at Stormont castle.

Mr. King: The point I was making is that my perception and that of many visitors and customers in Northern Ireland is different from the presentation that the hon. Gentleman gave. To try to describe Northern Ireland as a Province without hope, prospects, skills or abilities——

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not say that the Province——

The Lord Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. David Lightbown): That is not a point of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It is for the Chair to decide whether it is a point of order.

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your protection, because the Secretary of State is saying that I said that Northern Ireland was a country without hope or skills. I did not say that, and I resent——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a debating Chamber and that is not a matter for the Chair. The debate must continue.

Mr. King: I am grateful for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) may not have heard my opening remarks. He may have addressed his remarks solely to the two companies concerned, but I have made it clear—the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley knows this—that the topic for debate is the economy of Northern Ireland, with particular reference to those two companies. Therefore, I am addressing those issues.
The Northern Ireland economy faces challenges and starts from a more difficult position. However, it has achieved more and made more progress in the past year than it has in other recent years. That should be

recognised. I say to the hon. Member for North Down that the two companies concerned can be sustained, not by Government subvention, but by orders, which may in certain circumstances require Government assistance.
There would be no order in Harland and Wolff after the present SWOPS order were it not for the fact that a Ministry of Defence order is about to be constructed. That order makes it possible for the yard to consider taking further orders. It is no great secret in the House that I did what I could to ensure that the order went, in fair and successful competition, to Harland and Wolff. There are a number of orders in Shorts now which are there because of the skills of the company, the quality of its products, the commitment of the Government and whatever part I could play in helping to support export orders. The hon. Member for Belfast, North said that Ministers have stood aloof from the problems and have not sought to support employment. He said that Ministers are strangers to Northern Ireland and have not made a commitment to it. The hon. Gentleman will have to stand by his own conscience and judgment in those remarks.
Having dealt with the comments about the general state of the economy, I want to turn to the central issue, which is the fear that has echoed round the Chamber. Hon. Members seem to equate privatisation with liquidation. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley inadvertently, or perhaps deliberately, pleaded for a stay of execution. That is what many people in Northern Ireland think is about to happen.

Mr. Molyneaux: In a legal sense.

Mr. King: I understand that, but people are talking about the concept of privatisation as if it is the greatest threat that the companies have ever faced. I wonder what Mr. Harland and Mr. Wolff would have said as they embarked on their career. If somebody had said, "You should be part of a Government Department. You think that you can build ships, but you would be much better off if you had civil servants advising you at every step," I think I know what Mr. Harland and Mr. Wolff, who built a company with a name that echoes famously around the world, would have said to that suggestion.

Mr. Molyneaux: I do not resent the slap on the wrist that the Secretary of State administered earlier. However, I do not think that we were as guilty as he suggested. I agree that Mr. Harland and Mr. Wolff would have been horrified if they had been told that they could build ships and sell them only with a Government subsidy. At that time, their competitors were not benefiting from Government subsidies. That is the central problem.
With respect, I should like the Secretary of State to address his mind to the question that was put to him by myself and by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs). Can the Secretary of State point to an aircraft manufacturer anywhere in the world that is not being propped up by subsidies? The problem for the future is that if the two industries are privatised they will not be put out into a world where there will be fair competition. They will be meeting unfair competition. That is the central theme of our argument.

Mr. King: I took careful note of the direct question that the right hon. Gentleman asked, and I intend to answer it.
I wish to analyse the arguments that have been advanced in the debates as to why the idea of moving from


public to private ownership is bound to be disastrous for companies in Northern Ireland. One of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments was that the shipyard has a limited range of customers, unlike many of the industries that have been privatised in the service sector. Let us consider what happened with the Rolls-Royce aero engine company. It has a pretty limited range of customers—only people who manufacture or buy aircraft. That company was not in the service sector.
What about the Royal Ordnance factories? I had some personal experience of their privatisation, because there was one in my constituency. They had a limited range of customers, and there was a great fear whether, in private ownership, they could succeed outside the umbrella of the Ministry of Defence. There has since been a much more effective sales and marketing effort, and there is a much better prospect of long-term security of employment in that industry.
The most obvious illustration is British Shipbuilders. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the disadvantages of Harland and Wolff being geographically isolated. At that point, I said to my hon. Friend the Minister, "Can you think of any industry where it matters least if it is geographically isolated?" A shipyard would be the most obvious example. No one has ever told the Koreans that they are geographically isolated, yet they dominate the shipbuilding market and are considered fully competitive. No one seriously suggests that the future of the Govan shipyard would be secured by its continuing to be part of a loss-making nationalised industry that attracted orders at such a rate of public subsidy that, in the end, every order was a crisis and every month or year of survival was a bonus. Now owned by Kvaerner, a specialist company that has identified a market for its products, the prospect of long-term employment in the Govan yard is much better than it would have been in a general purpose nationalised industry.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we cannot keep companies in Northern Ireland unless they are publicly owned, and he cited the companies that have been there and left. I understand the problems that affected the synthetic fibre industry, such as the Courtaulds clothing plant and British Enkalon, but it is also worth remembering Du Pont. It is making its third consecutive investment in Northern Ireland in recent years. It is a successful company whose presence in Northern Ireland is based not on massive Government subsidy—certainly not on public ownership—but increasingly on the performance of the plant and the quality of the work force. It is a tribute to the skills of the engineering work force at Du Pont that when the company carries out chemical engineering work at its other plants in Europe, the engineers from Maydown are asked to do it.
In addition to public ownership, Shorts and Harland and Wolff have benefited from a substantial network of public finance of one sort or another. In shipbuilding, some finance comes through the intervention fund. The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked whether intervention fund assistance would still be available. We shall try to ensure that it is maintained, although it is discretionary. We recognise the need to make it possible for Harland and Wolff to compete against other yards within the terms of the European directive.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to name any aircraft company that operated either without subsidy or without some involvement in defence. Shorts produces

Tucano aircraft, and it has won the Starstreak missile order—the largest missile order ever placed by the Ministry of Defence—for a sum in excess of £200 million. The company is a valued and respected Ministry of Defence contractor, and its products command markets and continued support.
Against that background, I can see how Shorts will play its part. Other aerospace companies that have defence contracts—they may be development contracts, such as the one for the Starstreak missile—won those orders by virtue of their capabilities and their products in competition with others. I expect that to continue.
The fear that has been expressed in the debate has been a feature of other privatisations. I understand why, when the first companies were privatised, there were serious fears about the risks to employment, but, to use the hackneyed phrase, there is no need for us to look in the crystal ball when we can read the book. Very few Jaguar employees are saying, "Please let us return to the benefits of public ownership." Not too many people are saying, "I do not care for Associated Ports. I much preferred the British Transport Docks Board." Few of the employee shareholders of the National Freight Corporation say, "Bring back the good old days of British Road Services." Privatisation may be new to Northern Ireland, but it is not an English phenomenon. Privatisation has taken place in England, Scotland and Wales and the logical economic benefits have been felt everywhere.
I believe that our proposals must be accompanied by a consideration to secure employment, and that was the only part of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for North Down with which I agreed. We are concerned about that, as our record shows. It is essential that we achieve a good understanding of the intentions of anyone who might acquire the companies. We shall look very carefully at. any proposals that come forward, not simply at the price or financial arrangements, but in the widest possible sense at the implications for the Northern Ireland economy.
I stand by the record that I spelt out at the beginning of my speech. I made my commitment on the steps of Stormont castle, when I made it clear that I would do all that I could to help the economic progress of the Province. I have explained that unemployment has fallen by 20,000 since its high point in September 1986. I intend to do all that I can to ensure that that fall continues.
I want to see maximum employment and the best possible prospects in Harland and Wolff and in Shorts. I passionately believe that through private ownership and by the private sector approach there is a better prospect. of a brighter future than will ever come through a continuing and dead dependence on public support and subsidy, which tends only to enfeeble and enervate companies. The evidence of the improvements that can come from a private sector approach is all too apparent.
Both the companies are operating in the most difficult market conditions facing any product that is manufactured in the world at the moment. That is especially true of shipbuilding. The aircraft industry is also extremely difficult. If we cannot obtain orders, that will be a very serious problem. There can be no guarantee that orders will be obtained. The Government will do all that they can to support genuine efforts to sustain employment on a viable basis for both companies. I say that against a background in which Harland and Wolff has faced major problems. It has a proud name, but its future will determine whether there are to be jobs and orders. I note


that the company has major assets. It has excellent facilities and very good equipment, as the hon. Member for Leicester, South said. It has had major capital investment to its advantage, and it has considerable skills.
We embark on the challenge with those assets to our advantage. I note also for those who are concerned about the recent financial progress of Shorts that it has excellent products, not least in its missiles. I believe that it holds what is known as the "Pride in Excellence" award, which was awarded yet again to the company by Boeing for the quality of its manufacturing for Boeing to the very highest standards. It has real achievements.
Both companies have assets, real achievements and potential. The challenge that we face is to see how most effectively they can make a valuable contribution to the economy of Northern Ireland. We believe that our proposals are the right way to proceed. They have brought great benefits to companies and employees in Great Britain. We want to see those benefits in the rest of the United Kingdom and applied in Northern Ireland as well.

Orders of the Day — Bophuthatswana

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am sure that the House will be very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office for coming to the House to participate in this short debate on the Government's policy towards the republic of Bophuthatswana.
I do not profess to be an all-purpose expert on the affairs of South Africa. I became intrigued by the situation in Bophuthatswana as a consequence of considering southern Africa after my son went to work there. I became more and more intrigued the more I considered it. As my right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, I took advantage of an invitation to visit the republic of Bophuthatswana at Easter. I thank my hosts for the thoroughness with which they took me and others in the party around and made it possible for me to talk to those on the meeting list, those in official agencies and Government Departments, and also people who were not on the list. I was pleased to be able to seize the opportunity to talk to the man in the street whenever I could. I am pleased to say that that was quite often. I was impressed by the general atmosphere of freedom, of life, and of the relaxed air and confidence of the people. In one respect that was amazing, because it was not very long after the wretched and disfiguring coup, which was without doubt a sore point with everyone that we came across.
Among the people to whom I spoke were university students, who were especially refreshing and interesting. Once we had broken down the initial reserve and had become relaxed in our conversations, time and time again the remark made by one student after another of all disciplines was that they felt free in Bophuthatswana. Unibo does not just have a catchment area of Mmabatho, but goes far wider. Part of its attraction is its mix, with freedom of expression, action and thought, and freedom from oppression. I report that as something that was told to me and which I have no reason to doubt.
All in all, I found a fascinating conundrum. I found a multiracial, free enterprise, Christian, open, gay—I hate the misuse of that word—and friendly society. It was one that all the world would want for the whole of southern Africa. The paradox of it is that they are pariahed and condemned for being a product of apartheid. I hope it goes without saying, but I hold no brief for apartheid—hence the paradox. On the one hand, I do not like what it does and, on the other, when I go to what it has done, I find the very thing that we are trying to create in southern Africa as a whole.
The easy way out for those who wish to resolve that dilemma is to condemn the republic of Bophuthatswana as a puppet state. They say that it is not in charge of its own defence. It has a treaty with South Africa, which it initiated and negotiated when it secured its independence in 1977. It was only right that that treaty should be invoked by South Africa as a consequence of the coup. I am delighted that it did so and restored the democratically elected Government.
As for the officers in its army, it may be that the force of 3,400 men has in it two non-Bophuthatswanans—a brigadier and a lieutenant colonel—but the remainder, including the commissioner and the major general, are Bophuthatswanan. It is said that the Civil Service is


administered by South Africans on secondment. However, the figures show that 246 South Africans have been seconded, out of a total of 28,140 Civil Service employees, which is not the biggest percentage that there ever was. People say that the South Africans are perhaps in key positions. I cannot agree with that, because when I looked through the list I found that the South Africans there have been seconded for training and instructional purposes. I cannot help but commend the sentiments of President Lucas Mangope, when he said "My objective, as soon as we have people trained, is to have Bophuthatswanan citizens in charge of the Civil Service, but I cannot do that until I have achieved the instruction." The conditions that are used to run down Bophuthatswana's image are perfectly natural in the transition towards the self-educated state that it wishes to be.
We even have the prison service slung at us. It is run by a secondee, but I like a country that is not too proud to go to outside sources for advice when it feels that there is expertise to be had there and it wishes to learn, on the clear understanding between instructor and learner what the eventual outcome will be.
The economy is used as evidence with which to run down the independence of Bophuthatswana. It is said that 20 per cent. of its budget is funded by South Africa by way of grants, which amount to 403 million rand out of a total of 1,745 million rand. If a country is developing and trying to better itself and has infrastructural and development needs but is not recognised and therefore cannot go to other sources of aid, the only place to which it can go is its sponsor from whom it achieved independence and say, "Please help."

Mr. Michael Colvin: This is an important point. Is there not also some inconsistency among front-line states? Bophuthatswana has no one to whom it can turn, but the front-line states are not slow to trade with South Africa. I dare say that their economies can also be said to be 20 per cent. dependent on the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Shepherd: I went to South Africa with open eyes and, I hope, an open mind and no prejudice. I recognised that a substantial amount of trade was going on. I was about to say before my hon. Friend intervened that front-line states that gained their independence from Britain do not hesitate to come to us when development aid is required. That is perfectly natural.
I had considerable sympathy for the Economics Minister of Bophuthatswana, Mr. Kiekelame, when he gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in May 1987. He said that if his country was recognised by other countries he would have access to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and would probably be able to avoid the mistakes that were made by Zambia. Such wisdom and the desire not to try to reinvent the wheel and not to make every mistake in the book is to be encouraged. It saddens me that the country's economics are used to bludgeon it into the ground. Who else is there to turn to but South Africa?
If we look for parallels, not far away, from South Africa's point of view, there are Swaziland and Lesotho, which were fortunate enough to be part of the British empire before being given their independence. They are geographically similar to Bophuthatswana in that they are islands in a sea of South Africa. They, too, have

development problems. They have had greater difficulties with finance than does Bophuthatswana. It is not surprising that that country looks somewhat bewildered at the outside world, which refuses to recognise its plight.
I came to the conclusion that this is not an economic problem, but a political one. When I looked through the speech that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made to the Commonwealth Institute on 17 May, I saw that he reminded us of what Harold Macmillan said as Prime Minister in his famous "wind of change" speech. He declared the British Government's commitment to
a society which respects the rights of individuals, a society in which men are given the opportunity to grow to their full stature … a society in which individual merit alone is the criterion for a man's advancement, whether political or economic.
That rang a bell with me, because that is what I saw when I visited Bophuthatswana.
In so far as Bhophuthatswana has a right to be recognised on a wider basis than just South Africa, we have always placed great importance on the will of the people. So far as I can make out, the people want the present status of independence to continue. In 1987 the Select Committee asked hypothetical questions, such as if there were a whole different set of circumstances in South Africa, what would the case be, but as nobody has a crystal ball, or the least awareness of what the nature of the circumstances might be, it is perfectly reasonable for the country to say, "We like what we have and we want to stay as we are."
That was manifest by the election results of 1987. The two main political parties, the BDP and the PPP, secured 72 seats—the whole of the elected part of the Parliament. The BDP won 66 and the PPP six. The third party, which wanted independence on a different basis, secured no seats. The manifestation of the people is that they want the independence that they enjoy at present. They have reaffirmed that both by their vote and, paradoxically, by their non-vote. If they did not vote, it must be considered a vote for the status quo.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: My hon. Friend may wish to reflect on the fact that the third political party, which was opposed to the present status of Bhophuthatswana, could not field a candidate in the Odi-Moretele district to the east of the country, where, arguably, support for the status quo is at its weakest.

Mr. Shepherd: That is a good point and worth taking into account.
We have said to our friends in the Falkland Islands and elsewhere, "If you wish to leave, you may go." It could easily be said, "We have nothing to do with southern Africa and the republic in the middle of South Africa, which is a creature of South Africa, so we have no view on this matter." We say that we have no view about whether parts of Armenia go to Azerbaijan, or whether the Kurds go to Pakistan, Iran or Iraq. I do not accept that, because the British people have a responsibility in this sector.
We set up the boundaries around the Union of South Africa. We took southern Bechuanaland into the Cape colony, despite the representations of the chiefs and elders in 1885 that we should not do so. Therefore, we who have set up the present circumstances cannot absolve ourselves from them. The people of what used to be southern Bechuanaland, who were given their lands by virtue of


British Acts of Parliament in 1913 and 1936, ask why they should be abandoned by the British. Moreover, it would be in Britain's interests to tap that enormous source of support in that part of southern Africa, for the benefit of both Britain and southern Africa.
That leads me to my last point. There is an interest for Britain in this argument. We all agree that the future of South Africa is highly uncertain, but in Bophuthatswana there is an oasis of potential stability, if it can be given outside recognition. There is an opportunity for industrial investment in a strategically located and friendly country, with implications for north-south trade within the African continent. If that opportunity is being spotted by countries such as Taiwan, we should be spotting it too and securing investment there.
It must be in Britain's interest to secure the sources of platinum that we require. We no longer have platinum refining capacity in this country. The old days when sub-refined platinum came to this country to be refined are gone. The new refining capacity to be opened soon in Bophuthatswana will give that country added value, but will leave us more vulnerable. It makes sense for us to secure our sources of supply in the future.
In seeking to raise this matter tonight I was reminded of the speech, "South Africa: No Easy Answers", that was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and the message that it gave. He said:
there is another message common to both black and white in South Africa. Avoid intellectual or political straitjackets. Be ready to think the unthinkable.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister, as nicely as I can, to think the unthinkable. I was disappointed by the resolute stance that she took in May at Question Time, but I hope that if we set out the arguments again she will see them through fresh eyes and be induced to accept an invitation to visit southern Africa—not as Minister of State, with all the panoply of power—and to include in her visit the territory of Bophuthatswana. Perhaps she will encourage further contacts at an unofficial level so that a greater understanding can be achieved of the real contribution that that country can make.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)— with more than a degree of envy—on introducing the debate. Like him, I derive no particular pleasure from the opportunity. It is a sad fact that the Government, whom I staunchly support in every other respect—not least with regard to their policy towards South Africa—are deeply and profoundly mistaken in their interpretation of the situation in Bophuthatswana and in their policy towards that country.
Without doubt, this debate will not attract attention in the headlines of the national media tomorrow. It will, however, have a far wider audience. In time, reports of the debate will be read by the southern Batswana, the people of Bophuthatswana; and they will see the debate as another small landmark in their relentless and unceasing bid for justice. It is their argument—an argument that, with consideration of the evidence, I have come to accept —that the southern Batswana have been wronged by the policies of successive British Governments. That seems, alas, to be the case. British foreign policy seeks to deny the

people of Bophuthatswana their past, to ridicule their present and to condemn their future. I shall elaborate briefly on those three points.
On 8 February, I tabled a written question asking the Foreign Secretary
on what interpretation of the relationship between the territory of modern Bophuthatswana and the native reserves established for the Southern Botswana by British Governments is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Bophuthatswana based.
I received the reply:
Our policy is based on the fact that Bophuthatswana was created out of the Republic of South Africa, as a key element in the policy of separate development".—[Official Report, 8 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 56.]
It was not. That is a gross misinterpretation of the past. It is a rewriting of history which I and many of my hon. Friends will not accept. The territory which is now called Bophuthatswana is the historical and traditional territory of five Batswana tribes: the Barolong, the Bathlapiry, the Bathlaro, the Bakwena, and the Bafokeng. Those were the southern Batswana tribes which existed in that territory for nigh on 700 years. They were awarded independence in 1872 when, through the spokesman of the governor of Natal, the British Government said, "I order, adjudge and adjudicate that from henceforth this will be their territory." That future was very short. It lasted only a few years.
In 1885 the British Government divided the Batswana people. The north became the protectorate of Bechuanaland and in due course the independent republic of Bophuthatswana. Good luck to it. It is a magnificent country. The southern Batswana were, against their will, assigned to the Crown colony of the Cape. British Governments promised that that would not be the case, but it became the case. Then there was the rape and pillage of their land. The native reservations and native locations were established. The Land Act 1913 robbed from the southern Batswana even more of their land. It was marginally restored in 1936 and more greatly restored in the 1950s.
It simply is not the case that the southern Batswana, with their territory of Bophuthatswana, are the creation of apartheid. They existed hundreds of years before a Nationalist party was conceived and before the word "apartheid" was acknowledged. It is greatly to the discredit of any rational person to assume that this traditional and historic land of the southern Batswana was created in 1948, or whenever, by a Nationalist Government in South Africa.
Not only do we deny the past of the southern Batswana; we malign, either through ignorance or—I hope not—through malice, their present. I tabled a written question to the Foreign Secretary on 4 May 1988, asking
if he will take steps to ensure that the British embassy in Pretoria obtains more accurate information about the situation in Bophuthatswana.
I received the reply:
Her Majesty's embassy in South Africa already provides full and accurate information on all relevant aspects of the South African scene, including developments in Bophuthatswana."—[Official Report,4 May 1988; Vol. 132, c. 465.]
That was a most unfortunate reply. It came a fortnight after I and half a dozen of my hon. Friends had had the opportunity to speak to our embassy staff in Pretoria. Not only did they demonstrate their lack of knowledge; they specifically confessed it. More than that, they said they did not know why they should have any reason to talk about


Bophuthatswana. That led me to write a letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in which I listed nine points—nine howlers of omission and commission. I readily accept the fact that the embassy staff in Pretoria are now looking closely at events in Bophuthatswana.
Last week my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) addressed a meeting of the British Bophuthatswana all-party group and, in good faith —I have no quarrel whatsoever with her on that-—she made a number of observations which compounded our worry. My right hon. Friend spoke—I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford referred to this—

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are wont to refer to all-party groups on Bophuthatswana, Namibia and South Africa. Will he tell the House whether there are any Labour Members in the group to which he refers?

Mr. Hunter: To date, no Labour Member has chosen to apply for membership, although we have members from the Opposition Benches. It is a matter of great regret not least that the hon. Gentleman himself will not join our meetings, and I extend a warm invitation to him to do so on any future occasion.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Who pays for the trips?

Mr. Hunter: Ignorance and lack of information do not constitute a sound basis for foreign policy. I give just one illustration. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the police force of Bophuthatswana. She spoke in good faith, having been informed that the police force was under the control of South Africa. The police force has an establishment of 3,500 and is under the command of the magnificent General Seleke. I have not had the privilege of meeting a pleasanter man in any walk of life and a bigger, blacker Batswana I cannot imagine. The mind boggles at the proposition that he is a white South African—the disguise is certainly remarkable.
My central point is that British foreign policy towards Bophuthatswana is based on a lack of factual information. That cannot be a sound basis for any policy.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that if Bophuthatswana had been Marxist and militant rather than Christian and good, overseas aid would have been pouring out of the Foreign Office to that country years ago?

Mr. Hunter: Once again, my hon. Friend not only anticipates my next point but makes it with greater clarity than I could have achieved. One can indeed speculate on the irony of the fact that Oliver Tambo and Lucas Mangope were contemporaries at the same school. Oliver Tambo chose the route to command an organisation which flirts with Marxism and murder. Lucas Mangope follows a road which seeks to implement democracy and capitalism, to encourage free enterprise and to enshrine human rights. I deeply regret that it was Oliver Tambo, and not Lucas Mangope, who had the opportunity to speak to the Foreign Office.

Mr. Alan Meale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hunter: I will give way in due course.
The third point, and perhaps the heart of the matter, is the relationship between the republic of South Africa and

Bophuthatswana. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford said, we must dismiss irrelevance and double standards in argument. Dependence on South Africa by other southern African countries is regarded as a matter for regret and steps are taken to relieve it, but Bophuthatswana is rejected for it. As Lucas Mangope has said on more than one occasion, to a large extent the wealth of South Africa was built on the efforts, the labour and the land of his people, and he will bleed Pretoria for every last rand. I entirely endorse those sentiments.
What are the intentions of the republic of South Africa towards Bophuthatswana? It is my belief that there has been a subtle change in thinking on this score. About 18 or 20 months ago, when we last debated Bophuthatswana, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State rightly said that South Africa wished the world to give credence to its policy of grand apartheid. When the subject was raised again in May of this year, my right hon. Friend offered an alternative interpretation. It was that South Africa wished to retain control of Bophuthatswana. I concede that I find myself in agreement with her. I have talked many times and on many occasions to politicians, diplomats and civil servants of the Republic of South Africa. I have heard their protestations on international recognition for Bophuthatswana, but it is not my belief yet that the evidence substantiates that point of view. The thesis that I put to my right hon. Friend is simple. It is that international recognition of Bophuthatswana would arguably defeat rather than further the purposes of Pretoria.
I shall conclude with three observations. First, there is the essential truth and justice of the historical cause of the southern Batswana. Secondly, our foreign policy is founded on a lack of accurate information and analysis. Thirdly, ultimately something has started that will not be stopped. It invokes the wrath and ridicule of Labour Members; so let that be. The southern Botswana have their historical cause and case. They seek to regain their independence. As the years pass, they obtain more and more friends. The other day Vice-President and Foreign Minister Rathebe said, "It is a long, long walk for the southern Batswana. They will walk every mile of it." They will not walk alone.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Bearing in mind some of the comments that have been made by Labour Members, I shall start by declaring an interest. I have had trips to South Africa that have been paid for by the South African Government. I have had trips to Bophuthatswana that have been paid for by the Bophuthatswanan Administration, probably with funding from the South African Government. I have had trips to Namibia that have been paid for by the interim Administration, probably helped also by the South African Government. I have been to other places in the world, and my trips have been paid for by the Governments of those other places.
I maintain that after these funded trips I can be my own self and have my own thoughts along with my own mind. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House can maintain their independence in spite of trips of this sort. I do not think that I would have a point of view developed to the happiness of some of my hon. Friends and to the frustration of others if I had not made such trips.

Mr. James Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Rathbone: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me.

Mr. Pawsey: I shall indeed agree with you. If I may, I shall help with your argument. The fact that you have visited such countries gives you a much——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address the Chair.

Mr. Pawsey: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), because of his visits to other states, has a much better understanding of the systems that must exist in those countries. Therefore, he is better equipped to speak on these issues. That is one of the reasons why we are listening to him so intently.

Mr. Rathbone: I thank my hon. Friend.

Mr. Colvin: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is a pity that Opposition Members do not sometimes take up some of the invitations that are extended to them. If they were to do so, perhaps their understanding of the situation in southern Africa would be a great deal better than it is.

Mr. Rathbone: I shall try to move on from my background and that of other people to the subject of the debate. I should add, however, that I have friends in all the countries I have visited and in many others as well.
I fear that I must start by disagreeing in principle with what my honourable and very real Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has just said in his analysis of the past, the present and the future. I believe that from Bophuthatswana, as from many parts of the world that used to be painted red in our atlases, we must ask a good deal of foregiveness for the past. We must protect as far as we can good sense in southern Africa against the overpowering forces that oppose it. We must work for the establishment of the values of freedom—and most particularly total emancipation in that part of that continent—that we hold so dear in our country, and in others in the developing world.
Having said all that, let me add that I consider it right of my hon. Friends to draw attention to some of the events, attitudes, values and habits in Bophuthatswana that are in stark contrast with those in the rest of the republic of South Africa. On the basis of one extremely short visit and one rather longer one, I believe that a real elimination of apartheid is taking place—electorally, socially, culturally and economically. It is marked by the economic vitality of many parts of Bophuthatswana, especially those that are quite near to Johannesburg. Bophuthatswana has a multiracial administration and press freedom, again in stark contrast with the rest of the republic. It was marked even then—and I am sure it is marked even more now—by the blocking of broadcasting by Bophuthatswana television and radio so that it could not reach the rest of South Africa.
But there is also the downside. There are real doubts about political freedom in Bophuthatswana—probably no more than in many other black African countries, but there is certainly a smell of suppression of opposition parties and opposition thought. I cannot say more, because it is difficult to be precise.
As has already been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke and for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), Bophuthatswana depends terrifically on the republic of South Africa, despite the camouflage of the quasi-arm's-length attitude of South Africa towards Bophuthatswana and the creation of a pseudo-diplomatic relationship. For example, there is the pretence that the airport in Bophuthatswana is solely for the encouragement of tourism, when it is umpteen times larger than would be necessary for that and is part of the South African Government's total defence programme against the front-line states.
Bophuthatswana also depends on the republic for police support—in intelligence if in nothing else, but I think that it must be in other respects as well. It depends on the republic for border policing, particularly along the border with Bophuthatswana. The republic accepts that this is a channel, a route for the ANC from the front-line states into South Africa, and is openly concerned. It makes no bones about it, so let us make no bones about it here.

Mr. John Watts: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rathbone: No. I shall progress, if I may. [Hon. Members: "Give way".] Unfortunately, my hon. Friends who were so kind as to say that they would listen intently because of my depth of knowledge—[Interruption.]——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We often hear opinions in the House with which we disagree. We should listen to the hon. Member with respect.

Mr. Rathbone: I could not be more grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your arrival in the Chair and the respect that you show for a mere Back Bencher.
There is also dependence on South Africa, not just for trade—trade between South Africa and the front-line states has been mentioned—but for fundamental economic support and hard cash.
In addition, there is the Bophuthatswana Administration's attitude to the Swana who live elsewhere in the republic of South Africa. Are they part of Bophuthatswana? Are they part of the heritage, which has just been referred to? Are they not to be embraced in the collegiate total of this slowly emerging independent state? If it is an independent state, it should embrace them more than I understood to be the case when I visited Bophuthatswana not so very long ago.

Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rathbone: I shall proceed, if I may. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I am sure that he will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in order to make his own points.
There is also the question that has already been identified about what the republic of South Africa thinks is its relationship with Bophuthatswana. I honestly believe that it looks upon it as one of the homelands that one can see so clearly established. As soon as one drives across the so-called border between Bophuthatswana and the republic of South Africa one comes from and poor farmland into extremely well-tilled, good farmland. One can see the invidious nature of South Africa's homelands policy, under which I fear Bophuthatswana still suffers.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rathbone: I shall proceed, if I may. I want to give all my hon. Friends more time than would be the case if I were to give way to everybody now.

Mr. Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend give way to me?

Mr. Rathbone: I shall not be tempted by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Carlisle: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time.

Mr. Rathbone: Never has there been on the Conservative Benches a greater mutual appreciation of the views of my hon. Friend and myself. I am sure that he will understand that I want to proceed.
Therefore, there are two fundamental approaches to Bophuthatswana. Is it an independent state? I do not believe that it is. I believe that the Administration in Bophuthatswana are trying to have it both ways. They are trying to seek international recognition and, at the same time, trying to draw considerable cultural, economic and social support from the republic of South Africa.
Secondly, is Bophuthatswana really trying to throw off the republic of South Africa's homelands policy? I do not think that it is. It is not ready to embrace all the people that it wants to, and should, embrace—the Swana people who live elsewhere in the republic of South Africa.

Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rathbone: No, I shall not give way.
However, I would urge one extra point upon my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for consideration. If we do not recognise Bophuthatswana as an independent state, we must be even-handed about that region of the republic of South Africa and treat it as part of the republic of South Africa. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke illustrated that well in the points that he made about the lack of knowledge about Bophuthatswana which he found in our embassy in the republic of South Africa.
I clearly remember an absolutely fascinating and excellent nursery teacher training school in Mafeking, where a woman was doing a most marvellous job teaching nursery teachers. She was not able to apply to our embassy for the overseas development grants which were available to similar schools within the republic of South Africa because Bophuthatswana was considered separate from the rest of South Africa. If we are to regard it as part of South Africa, as I believe we should, those people should be able to draw upon or at least to apply for the funds that we make available.

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend said that he wanted to be even-handed. I accept much of what he has said this evening in his description of the country of Bophuthatswana. Does he agree that his description of that country, and its dependence on South Africa, is mirrored by so many states in that region, as was outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)? In those circumstances, in his anxiety to be even-handed, how can he say that Bophuthatswana should be treated differently from those other states?

Mr. Rathbone: I am sorry that I gave way, not because my hon. Friend did not make a point, but because I had covered that point earlier. I drew the difference between

Bophuthatswana and the front-line states, to which my hon. Friend was probably referring, which of course have trading relationships across the border. Given the economic power that exists in the southern tip of Africa, it would be impossible for that to be otherwise. That is a pity, but in the area of Bophuthatswana it is not just a question of trade. It involves the magnificent and egalitarian factories which exist in the eastern island which make up Bophuthatswana and the underpinning by hard cash grants from the republic of South Africa. So it is not really a comparable point.

Mr. Hunter: My hon. Friend has spoken for nearly 20 minutes.

Mr. Rathbone: I have spoken for this time only because other hon. Members have intervened and I shall continue to make my points. It was churlish of my hon. Friend to say that.
The Foreign Office and the Minister should bear in mind whether recognition will further the all-important fight against apartheid and bring sense to the continuing senseless attitudes of the South African Government and lead them to embrace reform. I fear that movement towards recognition would not do anything to further reform in the republic of South Africa but might inhibit it. The Minister should be wary about espousing political action on the basis of protecting economic interests. It is not sufficient for this country to recognise the existence of another country purely on the basis that we have economic interests in that area.
Contrary to the inclinations of my hon. Friends the Members for Hereford and for Basingstoke, and I fear other hon. Friends, it is premature at best to start taking steps towards recognition of Bophuthatswana as an independent state. At worst, that could be interpreted as support for the South African homelands policy and the South African Government's policy of maintaining the core and essence of apartheid which we all loathe.

Mr. George Gardiner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on having the courage to go and look at Bophuthatswana for himself a couple of years ago and for acknowledging some of the merits of that country. It is sad that his visit there was so short. Had it not been, he might have reached rather different conclusions. Perhaps he will rectify that in future. Unfortunately, he probably prepared most of his speech before hearing the speech of our hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who answered many of his points before he made them.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on securing the opportunity to debate this emerging subject. He spoke of a paradox, and so it is. If most of us were asked what we would regard as the ideal political accommodation in southern Africa, we should say that we wanted a country or state in which apartheid had been swept away, where there were full political rights for the different races and where black and whites worked together in a Government who exploited the free market economy for the benefit of their citizens. In Bophuthatswana we find a country that has won its independence and created a state in which all these features are present, but its people are treated as if they were pariahs in southern Africa.
Foreign Office Ministers have described Bophuthatswana as a child of apartheid. That is a gross insult to the people who live there. Certainly their independence came about as a result of the black homelands policy of the South African Government of the day, but there was a convergence of interests. The policy of the white Government gave black Swanas the opportunities for which they had yearned since the days when a British Government drew an artificial line on the map in the last century and sold out those on one side of it to the Crown colony of the Cape. These people saw the homelands policy as at least a chance to regain their independence, and took it.
Ethnic groupings across Europe seized their chance when the first world war caused the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Those were, perhaps, more enlightened times than now, for then we gave those European nations our blessing, but there is no such luck now for the Swana people. The Foreign Office regards their country as a child of apartheid and it is therefore barred from recognition for ever.
People who go to Bophuthatswana, as several of my hon. Friends have done, and speak to its citizens do not find that they regard themselves as children of apartheid. They see themselves as running their own territory according to their wishes. I am puzzled about what my right hon. Friend the Minister would say if she met some leaders from that country—that is, after they had managed to get past the "no entry for the children of apartheid here" signs outside her office. What would she urge them to do? Would she urge them to renounce their independence and return to the jurisdiction of the South African Government, who as yet include no black members? Would she urge them to subject themselves to the Group Areas Act? Of course not. I have far more understanding of and sympathy with my right hon. Friend than to imagine that she would. But what could she say to them? The question illustrates the blind inhumanity of the Foreign Office position, which would be revealed in any such conversation.
Not many hon. Members would expect my right hon. Friend to recognise Bophuthatswana as independent. It is our historical duty to help other Western countries to recognise what the Swana people have achieved. If my right hon. Friend consults her European colleagues, she will find that Dr. Strauss had something to say about this matter not very long ago. Those of us who have visited Bophuthatswana and met politicians from Germany, France and Italy know that they are taking an interest in its development and, probably out of the corner of their eyes, considering commercial possibilities.
The debate has shown that the movements to recognise Bophuthatswana are under way and that it is well and truly on the political agenda here as well as in other European countries. I say to my right hon. Friend, in a spirit of friendliness, that, whatever old prejudices still lurk in the Foreign Office, the subject will not go away.

10 pm

Mr. Donald Anderson: We are living in exciting times of movement in foreign affairs. Following the super-power summit in May, we have seen signs that the Iran-Iraq war is coming to an end, Vietnamese troops

withdrawing from Kampuchea, Soviet troops withdraw-ing from Afghanistan and the possible extension of the anti-ballistic missiles treaty.
There has been movement all around the globe, yet in the debate, in parliamentary questions and in a number of Adjournment debates, Conservative Members have shown interest in six land-locked enclaves within the republic of South Africa. Somebody is bound to ask about that sense of priorities. What provides Conservative Members with such an obsessive interest in those six land-locked enclaves in South Africa?

Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Anderson: Not yet; let me get under way.
I accept the nice tones in which the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) introduced the debate, and all Conservative Members are honourable gentlemen. They have been brought up well. They were probably taught at their mother's knee that if one receives gifts one must say "Thank you." This is their way of saying "Thank you." We know that there is a well-financed lobby——

Mr. Rathbone: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Anderson: I exclude the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) from any lobby—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I did not hear the word "hypocrite."

Mr. Anderson: It is a sad fact of political life that there is a well-financed lobby. I say, in all helpfulness, to Conservative Members who have spoken in the debate that their strong advocacy——

Mr. Hunter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that Conservative Members have been bribed and that as a result their judgment has been influenced?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that allegation. It certainly would not be in order for such an allegation to be made.

Mr. Anderson: I said, in all charity, that Conservative Members, as honourable gentleman, must pay, in some form, for the rather pleasant trips that they have had. Their advocacy of Bophuthatswana would be immeasurably strengthened if, from time to time, even a word of criticism of the South African regime were to escape from their mouths. If, for example, any Conservative Member were to criticise the bloody incursions of South Africa into Botswana——

Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Anderson: No.
Their advocacy would be strengthened if there were one word of criticism of the detention without trial of many progressive black leaders in South Africa. The fact that there is no such criticism gives some indication of those who form part of the Bophuthatswana lobby.
There is a Bophuthatswana tendency in the House which must be of considerable embarrassment to the Minister of State. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Lewes sprang gallantly to her defence. If he had not, her back would have been exposed. The Minister was brave to go into the meeting of the so-called all-party Bophuthatswana group, which may have an Ulster Unionist Member but it certainly has no Labour Member on it. I confess that I feared for her safety at one stage.
However, we know that she can look after herself. The group was hoping to roast her, but the lady was not for burning.
There is what, in South African terms, would be called the Bitterendes or the Verkrampte tendency among Conservative Members.

Mr. Gardiner: rose——

Mr. Anderson: At least on this issue the perception of Opposition Front Bench Members does not differ markedly from that of the Government.
We see the origin of Bophuthatswana as part of the Verwoerd strategy to create Bantustans. That is shown graphically on page 23 of the report by the Eminent Persons Group. I recommend that Conservative Members read that report—[Interruption.]I will not exchange insults with the star on the Conservative Benches, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
The motive of the Bantustan policy was to deprive black South African citizens of their citizenship. In 1977 the Status of Bophuthatswana Act was passed and all residents were deprived of South African citizenship. How well founded is the claim to independence? On 7 July 1988, The Weekly Mail in South Africa pointed out that the number of personnel from South Africa seconded to key posts within the Bophuthatswana Administration was 299. It gave the amount of financial assistance to the four Bantustan so-called independent states. It said that the South African Government have guaranteed bank loans of 1·3 million rand to cover the budget deficits in the four independent homelands over the past two financial years. Pik Botha told the Parliament that the total estimated overdraft facilities taken by the four independent homelands was 1·081 billion rand.

Mr. Watts: rose——

Mr. Anderson: There was clearly a substantial financial dependence. In terms of jobs, two thirds of the labour force commutes daily to South Africa and 56 per cent. of the gross domestic product derives from migrant workers. Militarily, we know the position of Brigadier Hennie Riekert, the former South African Defence Force officer. Politically South Africa is the only friend in the world of Bophuthatswana and it seeks, by bullying neighbouring states, to coerce them into accepting the independence of Bophuthatswana.
The examples that one can give are of the so-called BLS states—Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland—which, when they tried to renegotiate the South African customs union, were told by South Africa that, first, they had to accept the recognition of Bophuthatswana. With the trains to Botswana through Bophuthatswana, South Africa tried to insist on the acceptance of documentation that would have meant acceptance of the recognition of Bophuthatswana. On other occasions, Botswana has criticised the poaching of industries to the heavily subsidised part of Bophuthatswana.
The claim to independence is placed in question by the events surrounding the abortive coup in February this year. The New Nation of 11 February described the debate between the Foreign Minister, Pik Botha, and the finance ministries about whether South Africa should have intervened earlier to deal with the corruption of Mr. Mangope. It quoted Professor Keenan of Wits university, and said:

According to Keenan foreign affairs valued Mangope's strong links and good relations with right-wing elements in Germany and other West European countries. Mangope's value to foreign affairs is said to have outweighed any embarrassment that could have been caused to Pretoria by his involvement in alleged corruption.
Of course, Right-wing Ultra groups in West Germany and Britain form part of the lobby in favour of Bophuthatswana.

Mr. John Carlisle: Name them.

Mr. Anderson: Some of them have named themselves.
Mr. Mangope had just been re-elected before the abortive coup in February—in a democratic election with a poll of 0·6 per cent. ——

Mr. Hunter: That is absolutely incorrect.

Mr. Anderson: The Weekly Mail of 12 February quoted President Botha, after the coup, as saying:
We are tonight back in full control"—
a very Pavlovian slip. He thought that he had better alter that, and he said:
The President of Bophuthatswana is in full control.
What would be the effect if Britain recognised those six enclaves in South Africa? First, it would be a mark of approval for South Africa in general, and its Bantustan policy in particular—too much for even our Prime Minister. Secondly, it would run counter to the views of all our allies in the Commonwealth and the European Community. Thirdly, it would be a giant step away from out declared aim of a united, democratic and non-racial South Africa, to which the Government are committed.
The Government realise that they are going against the tide and are in real danger of being even further isolated in the world as a result of their South African policy. I think not only of the recent decisions of Prime Minister Rocard, but of developments in the United States, which are causing considerable concern to the Government because of their clear message that the British Administration will be isolated. The Prime Minister is prepared to meet Mr. Buthelezi; she is not prepared too meet Mr. Tambo. That sends its own message.
The Opposition congratulate those sportsmen and musicians who reject the wages of "Sin City". We praise musicians such as Jim Keer of the group Simple Minds, and the group Dire Straits. We are pleased to note in The Independent today that Seve Ballesteros, the British Open golf champion, has said in terms that he will never visit Bophuthatswana to compete in the £1 million challenge golf cup in Sun City. It was won last year by Ian Woosnam, who I hope will see the error of his ways.
Finally, the Opposition stand by the members of the front-line states, especially Bostwana, which has refused to yield to the economic pressures forced on it by South Africa, which wants international recognition of that part of its territory for its own purposes as part of its greater apartheid policy.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Offlce (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I have listened with interest to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). Let me make no bones about it: we are very much aware of the deep interest that many hon. Members have in Bophuthatswana and the well-being of the people in Bophuthatswana whom, in all sincerity, they wish to help.
There is not sometimes so much dividing us on this issue as some of my hon. Friends would have made out tonight. However, there is undoubtedly one central question, as we have heard during the debate, which divides us. Some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford, believe that the Government should recognise Bophuthatswana as an independent state. I listened very carefully to what my hon. Friends have said this evening. I hope that they will hear me out because I say this in all sincerity. I should like to see a way to change the position which is plainly seen by my hon. Friends to be unsatisfactory for the people of Bophuthatswana. However, I must recognise what lies in international law and realise what has happened through history.
History causes this Government to describe Bophuthatswana as having developed from the policy of grand apartheid initiated by Dr. Verwoerd. It was created as a key element in that policy of separate development. All the homelands in South Africa were born out of apartheid. By that they live together within their areas as if they were multiracial. However, that can be deceptive. Those who live in the homelands cannot live freely in the rest of South Africa. We must look at this very carefully and with sympathy for those who want to improve the lot of all people in South Africa, whether in the homelands or elsewhere in the republic.
This Government's policy is in line with that of the international community at large. Our policy is to oppose the design of a divided and separated South Africa. Only the South African Government think otherwise. South Africa is the only country in the world which recognises Bophuthatswana as an independent state.
I believe that there is something in the unanimity of the international community. That is a unanimity of attitude which has nothing to do with being blind to the facts or with not listening to the needs of the people. There is an anxiety about what would be imprinted for the future if Bophuthatswana were to be recognised internationally as independent. That unanimity is there for all to see.
I know that my hon. Friends who have spoken tonight are as fully opposed to apartheid in all its manifestations as they could be. The Government are fully opposed to all apartheid whether it be part of some master plan or practised—as it is regrettably still practised—in the republic of South Africa. We cannot recognise as an independent state a homeland that is part of that master plan. Bophuthatswana does not meet the criteria for recognition as an independent state that have been followed by successive British Governments. Those criteria are based on international law.
With others we have supported UN resolutions and statements, which deny recognition to Bophuthatswana. More than all that, and, more importantly, is my duty as a British Minister to examine what British interest would be served by identifying ourselves alone with the South African Government on this issue. Some hon. Members have argued that there are aspects of Bophuthatswana that are sufficient to make the case for recognition. Tonight some hon. Members have referred to visiting European politicians, who may have some sympathy with people in Bophuthatswana. None of the European Governments, whatever individual politicians may say or do—not the

Government of Franz Josef Strauss nor the Government of France, before or since the recent election—recognises Bophuthatswana.
I hope that hon. Members will understand that Britain, especially, wants to help, but it would be wrong to lead international opinion in the direction of granting recognition, because it would put our view on a par with that of the republic of South Africa.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose——

Mr. John Carlisle: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: I say quite clearly that, whatever the case that hon. Members believe can be made for the existence of a democratic, non-racialist society in Bophuthatswana, those are not the points that are central to the Government's reasoning for not recognising Bophuthatswana.

Mr. Winterton: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend and to the debate. As my right hon. Friend is aware, this is an area of southern Africa about which I am deeply concerned. Will she advise the House how the south Tswana people can achieve independence, because it was the United Kingdom which put them in what is the republic of South Africa today? It craved independence. It has started on that trail to independence. Does she not believe that a move towards greater recognition of its status would enable it to consolidate the areas of Bophuthatswana and therefore enable it more ably to become the sort of independent nation with integrity about which she is talking?

Mrs. Chalker: I recognise my hon. Friend's frustration. His question was also asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner).
The point is that we must end apartheid throughout South Africa. It is in the ending of apartheid that the people, including those in the front-line states——

Mr. Dicks: It is about time we heard something about that.

Mrs. Chalker: This debate is on Bophuthatswana, and I shall stick to that.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that the recognition of the independent nature of the individual people in Bophuthatswana is a matter of international law. It is not about the individuals in that country for whom he and the rest of us feel very deeply. Many others in the republic of South Africa are in very much the same position intellectually, and wish to achieve the same, but they are not in Bophuthatswana. Therefore, we must achieve the ending of apartheid throughout the republic of South Africa. There will then be leadership from the very sort of people that my hon. Friends have been talking about in Bophuthatswana, many of whom are practising——

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Chalker: I have very little time and I have a lot of questions to answer. If I give way, I shall not be able to answer all the questions.
I was saying that the Government's position on recognition is quite straightforward. We are executing a policy of non-recognition, but we know that that is not free of difficulty. Like others in the international community, we want to know as much as we possibly can


about what is happening in Bophuthatswana—and, lest I be accused of over-concentrating on the homeland, in the rest of the republic.
Some of my hon. Friends have said that we do not have the right sort of information, but whenever I have found information lacking, we have gone back to find it. I know that one or two of my hon. Friends were not happy, when they made a visit earlier this year, that they could not meet the ambassador. I agree that it was unfortunate, but he happened to be in Cape Town and they were in Pretoria. They met a new Minister who was in Pretoria. I can pass on to them an invitation from Her Majesty's ambassador in Pretoria that he will welcome the chance to discuss this and other issues with them when they visit South Africa again shortly. The ambassador and all his staff are under strict instructions to be fully in touch, and they are.

Mr. John Watts: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Chalker: They supply information all the time.

Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Chalker: No. I must keep going; otherwise, I cannot get through all the points that have been made.

Mr. Watts: It is not true.

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend accuses me of having told the House an untruth. I can assure him that I know what goes on between my Department and the ambassador in South Africa.

Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Chalker: I should explain to my hon. Friend that, whatever impression he has formed, it is unfortunate because it is not correct.

Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Chalker: No. I am sorry, but I shall continue with my speech.

Mr. Dicks: This is the Foreign Office view.

Mrs. Chalker: It is easy for my hon. Friends to advise that we should take actions which they think are simple and straightforward, but they would be open to misinterpretation. That is why we are careful and thorough about how we go about ensuring that we are as well informed as possible. We have taken steps to improve our knowledge. I remember a debate in the House in 1986, when I was asked about British Council money being available for people in Bophuthatswana. The question was a complete surprise to me. I went away and found out what was happening and corrected any error immediately. I shall always do that. It was not the Government's intention to mislead the House.
The information that we collect is obviously constrained by the contacts that we can have. I would not have thought that that was the cause of any surprise. The contacts that we have have to be circumscribed by non-recognition of Bophuthatswana as an independent state, but we aim as far as possible——

Mr. Dicks: The Government speak to terrorists in the ANC.

Mrs. Chalker: —to cover as wide a cross-sectiori of people in Bophuthatswana as possible, because that enables us to assist disadvantaged black people in that homeland.
I have already told hon. Members who came to the meeting last week that if there are projects which should be undertaken, the people of Bophuthatswana are just as able to be helped through our projects as people in other parts of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Hunter: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: We will continue to do that.

Mr. Hunter: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: All suggestions for new projects suitable for assistance, whether inside or outside Bophuthatswana, which hon. Members put to me I shall pass to my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who is listening to the debate. We shall examine them with care and, when we can help, we shall.

Mr. Hunter: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, as the debate is drawing to an end. I note the absence from her speech so far of any reference to the historical responsibility of the United Kingdom for the southern Batswana being incorporated into South Africa. Before the debate ends, will she make a passing reference to the fact that, as a result of British policy, the southern Batswana are now in South Africa?

Mrs. Chalker: Not all the southern Batswana are in Bophuthatswana. We covered this point in the 1986 debate and on other occasions. If we could solve this problern by turning back the pages of the history books, it would have happened long ago, but that cannot be done. It would be simple for my hon. Friend to say that he recognises the homeland of Bophuthatswana, but if he did, he would do so in the company of the republic of South Africa alone.
Another question put to me repeatedly has been whether we are prepared to help candidates from Bophuthatswana to take up scholarships. It does not seem widely known that they are eligible to apply for scholarships in exactly the same way as other applicants from the rest of South Africa. We shall continue to ensure that that happens.
History has taught us that what happens in other countries, even where once we had a clear writ, cannot be changed. We have to face the situation in South Africa as it is. The Government believe that Bophuthatswana and the other homelands will find their future in South Africa once apartheid has been abolished. It is the abolition of apartheid that must be the aim and main purpose of British policy.
Several of my hon. Friends referred to the speech given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the Royal Commonwealth Society. It detailed fully our overall policy towards South Africa. We want to see apartheid ended. We want to see it not merely reformed but abolished altogether, and soon. Our policy on Bophuthatswana cannot be isolated from our policy towards South Africa as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is part of South Africa, and we cannol legally recognise it as anything else.
South Africa as a country has enormous potential, as has Bophuthatswana within South Africa, but that is where it is. We wish to see it develop along with all the


other areas around the homelands. I know that hon. Members are anxious about this and that they will not give up, but the best help that we can give the people of Bophuthatswana is to encourage fundamental change throughout South Africa which will lead to a unified,

non-racial and representative Government in South Africa, and that will also include all the people of Bophuthatswana. We want to see that country free of apartheid——

In accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c.19.]—the debate was conclude.

Orders of the Day — Yorkshire and Humberside (Economy)

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I hope that Conservative Members will take as much interest in this debate on a region of this country as they did in the preceding lengthy discussion about an obscure and somewhat dubious country in southern Africa. But, as the Benches opposite have completely cleared, I doubt whether that will be the case. It amazes me to see their interest in a particularly dubious country and certainly their lack of interest in a most important region of their own country.
I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate on the economy of Yorkshire and Humberside. It would have been remiss of the House to go through the first Session after a general election without having a detailed debate on one of this country's most important regions.
I am reminded of a cartoon that appeared on the front page of The Guardian the day after the general election. It depicted a ship, Great Britain, broken into two parts—the north and the south. It showed the passengers on the southern part of the broken ship telling Captain Thatcher, "Sod the others; lets keep going." To me, that cartoon encapsulates much of the Government's attitude to the north, and in particular to areas such as Yorkshire and Humberside.
I propose to draw attention to detailed evidence of very real regional differences that have been added to significantly by the present Government's policies. In particular, I shall consider the problems of Yorkshire and Humberside, and concentrate on my own home area of West Yorkshire and the Wakefield district, although I know that some of my hon. Friends will wish to comment on South Yorkshire and other parts of the Yorkshire and Humberside region. This Government have an appalling record of neglect of the north of England. They have effectively washed their hands of any real concern for the economy and future of the north of England, and of Yorkshire and Humberside in particular.
There has been much debate about whether there is such a thing as a north-south divide. Having spent a lot of time in the south of England since the general election, I know that there are major divisions in London and the south-east—between rich and poor, between the haves and the have-nots—and those divisions have been added to by the Government's policies.
I shall quote at some length from two academic reports that examined the issue of the north-south divide. A report, written by Gudgin and Schofield for the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre in November 1987, says:
it remains true that employment opportunities are on average much more restricted in the northern half of the UK … than in the southern half. Consequently the poverty associated with high unemployment is concentrated in these same regions.
The report goes on to say:
Anticipated growth in national output is sufficient to allow expansion in all parts of the UK. This is not the case however for either employment or population. Large parts of the Industrial North and Periphery are expected to lose rather than gain jobs between now and the year 2000.
Again it states:
What this amounts to is a strengthening of the North-South divide which has become increasingly evident

since the end of the long postwar boom in the mid 1970s. The future contrast is likely to be between a booming southern half of the country and a slowly declining northern half.
All the evidence in that report and in others suggests that Government policy is adding to the divisions.
A more recent report by Champion and Green which emerged in January this year, entitled "Local Prosperity and the North-South Divide," says:
The most striking result that emerges continually from this analysis is the great extent of the North-South divide. The Amalgamated Index scores reveal an even clearer cleavage on this dimension than did the index developed in the previous study.
That was in 1985.
All the 35 highest-scoring places … have been found to lie on or south of a line between the Severn estuary and Lincolnshire".
The report continues:
Over the rest of the country, the poor performance of the principal industrial concentrations remains evident".
In particular, the report refers to the sharp deterioration in the South Yorkshire area, to which some of my hon. Friends will refer later.
The report states:
the main weight of the evidence points to the North-South divide as the primary dimension in variations in economic health across Britain at the level of the Local Labour Market Area and it also shows that, despite the above observations, the general trend in the 1980s has been a widening of this gap.
The report concludes:
the problems of the major urban areas and smaller industrial and mining settlements in the north must be solved in situ, or else their regions will gradually wither away.

Mr. Barry Field: rose——

Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I will not give way. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak, he must catch Mr. Speaker's eye and make his own comments.
I have today obtained from the Library the official employment statistics for the Yorkshire and Humberside region. They show that since 1979 male employment in the region has fallen by 201,000, or nearly 17 per cent., and, while female employment has increased by 0·1 per cent., that has been due to increased part-time working. I shall refer later to the implications of that in terms of low pay.
Real figures relating to unemployment are no longer kept, but even the official figures, which have been adjusted downwards perhaps 20 times and which therefore do not tell the whole truth, show that, allowing for discontinuities and seasonal trends, unemployment in June 1988 was twice what it was in June 1979, when the Conservatives came to power. In April 1988, the latest month for which such figures are available, the proportion of those unemployed in the region for a year or longer, at 41·6 per cent. made it the fifth highest in the country. At 33·7 per cent., the proportion of the unemployed aged under 25 was also higher than the national average, being second only to Scotland.
The standard of living figures, measured by per capita GDP, show that Yorkshire and Humberside have consistently been below the United Kingdom national average for the last eight years. The level of investment in manufacturing per employee—a significant factor when considering the products of the region—has been significantly lower than elsewhere in Britain. In 1987 it was £1,284 compared with the national average of £1.500.
Low pay is an issue of vital concern to hon. Members who represent West Yorkshire constituencies. The


regional trend figures for 1988 show that, across the board, earnings in Yorkshire and Humberside were well below the national average. I shall quote from two objective and academic reports prepared by the West Yorkshire Low Pay Unit. Having examined the Council of Europe decency threshold for wages, the unit reported that the county had fallen to the bottom of the national pay league.
For example, it discovered that one third of the total full-time work force in the area was low-paid by the standards of that threshold. For part-timers the position was even more desperate, with over 80 per cent. falling into the low-paid category when assessed on an hourly rate. The unit reported that, since 1979, the proportion of the male work force in West Yorkshire receiving low wages had more than doubled, with just under one fifth of full-time adult male workers being low-paid.
For full-time women workers there has been little change in a far more serious problem, with just under 60 per cent. low paid in the West Yorkshire area. Since 1979, average wage levels in West Yorkshire have fallen relative to the British average and the region is now bottom of the pay league with the worst low-pay problem of all nine urban industrial regions in Britain.
In the last few days a case was brought to my attention of a young lady of 18 working as a care worker in a private home for aged persons in Huddersfield being paid a grand total of 50p per hour. That is a disgrace, but that is the reality of the enterprise culture generated by the Government.
In the light of cases like that, one must also consider the extent of illegal underpayment—an issue about which I am deeply concerned in West Yorkshire. Wages inspectorate visits to firms in Yorkshire and Humberside in 1987 found that 26·6 per cent. of workplaces were not paying the legal rate for the job. The total amount owed to workers, such as the young lady whom I mentioned, was £161,225 in that year alone. Yorkshire and Humberside also had the highest percentage wages debt of any region in the country, 42 per cent. of the debt being unpaid.
Interestingly, however, the total number of prosecutions fell significantly, from 16 in 1978 to nine in 1987—no doubt due to deliberate Government policy in support of a free market in wages. There has also been a deliberate attempt to undermine the role of the wages inspectorate region by region. In Yorkshire and Humberside the number of inspectors has been reduced from 14 in 1979 to just seven in 1987.
In my area of West Yorkshire there is particular concern about two industries—textiles and coal—and no doubt colleagues with greater knowledge will wish to add to my comments on those industries. Ten years ago the textile industry nationally employed 405,800 people. Since then, the figure has been reduced by 45 per cent. The Silberston report of 1984 highlighted the precarious future of the textile and clothing industries in the United Kingdom, suggesting that 50,000 jobs might be lost by 1990.
We know to our cost that many of those predictions have already come true. The National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers claimed that 90,000 jobs would be lost following renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement in 1986, and there has been a huge impact on job losses in West Yorkshire. Many Members present for this debate

have experienced greater problems with this than I have in Wakefield, but it is clear that the establishment of a textile closure area in West Yorkshire has only partly slowed down and still constitutes a major problem.
In September last year a joint report was produced by the councils of Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield on the European regional development fund quota assistance scheme. The report states:
the Non-Quota schemes … have not been sufficient to cope with the area's needs and potential for restructuring. The objectives of the ERDS Non-Quota measures relating to countering high levels of unemployment in textile and clothing zones, and improving the unfavourable physical environment … have not been fully achieved. The background continuing vulnerability of the economy and decaying infrastructure have shown that the schemes have been well-intentioned and effective at a micro-economic scale, but have failed at this stage to exploit opportunities to the full and to influence the development of the macro-economy.
Having had discussions with the managemets and unions of firms in my constituency, I am aware of the views of those in the textile industry of Government's policy. Only recently I met the management of Poppleton's in Horbury in my constituency, which left me with no doubt that it considers that the Government have made a disgraceful attack on the textile industry. It considers that the industry has been allowed to be swamped by dumped products and to go to the wall. That has been the case in West Yorkshire.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Government have failed to press the EEC Commission to stop the import of Turkish yarn into the United Kingdom, which has cost nearly 600 jobs in Bradford in the past five months? I am sure that it will cause jobs to be lost in other areas of the textile industry in West Yorkshire.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is correct. That issue was referred to in the discussions that I had only a few weeks ago with the company that is now closed. It was concerned about the way in which the Government had handled the import of Turkish yarn.
I have spoken in this Chamber about the coal industry on several occasions. The industry is of direct concern to me in my constituency, as it is to other hon. Members who are in their places tonight. I shall draw attention to the problems faced by the Wakefield district as a result of the deliberate attack on and rundown of the industry in West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and elsewhere. In 1981, in Wakefield district, there were 17,000 employed in mining in 18 pits. There are now 6,000 employed at five pits. Nearly 2,500 jobs have gone so far this year. The implications for individual families and communities must be obvious to all who are present tonight.
Often overlooked are the knock-on effects of job losses elsewhere in local industry, including service industries. Three major engineering companies in my constituency have been badly affected. There seems to be a lack of perception of the way in which pit closures have a knock-on effect in the engineering industry and the retail trade. Numerous small firms within my constituency provide services as subcontractors to engineering companies and the collieries themselves. We see also what happens to the retail trade within the service sector—this is what is called the local expenditure multiplier effect— when pits close. Even jobs in corner shops are part and parcel of the local economy, which should be taken into


account when pit closures take place. In my constituency, nearly 1,500 jobs have been lost in the service sector as a result of pit closures since 1979.
When the Government discuss the coal industry they refer constantly to the public cost of keeping open certain pits that they deem in some instances to be uneconomic. I never cease to marvel at the amount of public money that is used to keep miners unemployed. I shall refer to a report, published recently, which was produced by Kathy O'Donnell of Leeds university for the Wakefield district council. That report deals with the effects of pit closures in the Wakefield area in recent years.
Kathy O'Donnell examined the cost to the public since March 1985, the end of the miners' strike, of pit closures in the Wakefield district. She claims that it cost British Coal £65 million in redundancy payments. It cost Wakefield district council £5·5 million because of the reduction in rate income from collieries and increased demands for services from unemployed miners. It cost central Government £169 million in redundancy and benefit payments. It cost the EC £884,000 in contributions to redundancy schemes. A total of £241 million has been spent since March 1985 to keep people unemployed. That is economic nonsense. The money could have been invested in job creation rather than wasted on unemployment.
In my area, and elsewhere in West Yorkshire and Yorkshire and Humberside, there is deep concern about the coal industry's future under the present Government. Only this week the all-party Select Committee on Energy referred to the implications of electricity privatisation, mentioning the uneven treatment given to nuclear energy and coal:
The problems of nuclear have been glossed over while there has becn an emotional hostility towards thc coal industry".
During the last financial year, British Coal sold 77 per cent. of its output to the electricity supply industry. The seriousness of the implications for coal are obvious to anyone. According to a report earlier this year by the Coalfield Communities Campaign, 73 per cent. of jobs in the coal industry depend directly on sales to the electricity supply industry. At national level, those sales account for 98,765 jobs. In North Yorkshire, which relates directly to the Wakefield district, where 87 per cent. of output goes to the CEGB for generation, such sales support about 12,500 jobs. In Wakefield metropolitan district alone, the figure is 5,266.
Two very dubious private Bills, now going through the House, are designed to increase capacity for the importing of coal from countries such as South Africa. No doubt Conservative Members will support that move. But what are the implications for West and South Yorkshire of allowing the CEGB to import 8 million tonnes of coal to the Trent and Yorkshire power stations? The Coalfield Communities Campaign estimates that if imports proceed at projected levels, 36 collieries will close, with a loss of 51,544 jobs. The Yorkshire coalfield would be virtually wiped out.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Was not the EECs refusal to fund the project on Humberside a direct recognition of the damage that it could do to other parts of the region?

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is quite correct. It is a disgrace that the Government have supported—as they

clearly have—what was supposedly a private measure. We have noted that certain prominent members of the Government have been present to support those Bills.
I understand that I have been on my feet for rather a long time, so I shall draw my remarks to a rapid conclusion. As well as destroying industry in the Yorkshire and Humberside area, the Government have directly attacked the region's capacity to attract inward investment. An example is the scrapping in 1982 of the industrial development certificate system, which directly prevented the movement of firms from south to north to generate jobs in areas such as Yorkshire and Humberside.
In my own area, Wakefield district, assisted area status was removed in 1982. Urban development grants, which were previously used to generate employment, have been taken away. The Government have hammered local authorities' capacity to assist the generation of indus try at local level.
The fortunes of the coal and textile industries in Yorkshire—especially in West Yorkshire—and Humberside are ample evidence of an economic strategy based on unbridled market forces. Large parts of those regions have been written offby a philosophy that believes that it makes more sense to pay people not to work rather than to invest and create the conditions for job generation.
Last month the Association of Yorkshire and Humberside Chambers of Commerce published a report on the "Yorkshire and Humberside Eurolink", which makes interesting reading. That report states:
Our conclusion is that, left to themselves, market forces are unlikely to generate more than a patchy response to the region's infrastructure needs. In the course of our discussions, the region's Chambers have identified a number of priorities in terms of infrastructure.
That report discusses in detail the need for public investment in air transport, in the road network, in the railways, in water mains, sewers, factory premises and sites. Those are areas that the Government should address and it is their own supporters, the business men, who are trying to get that message across.
The people of Wakefield, Yorkshire and Humberside, want to work, and it would make economic sense for the Government to enable them to do so.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: I should be understating the case if I said that I differ from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). The picture of Yorkshire and Humberside that he has painted is peculiar to his perceptions and not an accurate representation of the area.
The economy of Yorkshire and Humberside is dependent upon several factors, including the availability and quality of the labour force. I assure the House tbat, on both counts, the regions' scores are excellent. The economy also depends upon industry investing, creating employment and making profit on its investment—the hon. Member for Wakefield may consider profit a rude word. The region and its people must have self-confidence and generate confidence in outsiders. To succeed, the region must be able to offer factory sites, housing and land, which must be affordable. The region must have good communications by road, rail, sea and air. It must have a decent environment and welcome visitors. I submit to the House that the Yorkshire and Humberside region possesses all those qualities.
Bryan Gould, writing about the inner cities in volume two of the magazine Agenda——

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould),

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I believe that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) realises his mistake.

Mr. Patnick: I meant no insult to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) but I must tell that hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that there is nothing in the magazine to say that he is a Member of Parliament. The magazine just has his picture and his name.
In that magazine the hon. Gentleman states:
In both Birmingham and Sheffield Labour councils have teamed up with local business and the voluntary sector to produce exciting redevelopment schemes. Independent and experienced consultants have commended the plans. Each interested group stands to gain from a go ahead and so the real beneficiaries will be the local community as a whole who will see balanced developments comprising housing and economic activity, community facilities and new entertainment and transport links—so much better than the unbalanced developments that have given vast soulless commercial centres that close down at six or large housing estates with nothing for young people to do.
Yorkshire and Humberside needs good communications. In a previous debate I referred to that region's links with Manchester airport, which is one of the main outlets for people from that region who wish to visit Europe and America.
The Government have provided the Stockbridge bypass, which runs through the constituency of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), and is used by my constituents. A new motorway is not on the cards, but a new link between the M1 and the M62 is under active consideration.
During my discussions with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Transport he said that he was prepared to contact the Peak national park, Derbyshire county council and Sheffield metropolitan district council to ascertain whether improvements could be made to black spots on Snake pass, the A57 and the Woodhead route. Obviously there is need to open up that area and improve Manchester airport. It is a gateway airport that provides a service to people in Yorkshire and Humberside, who can avoid the problems of having to travel south to Heathrow and Gatwick via the M1 roadworks and the overcrowded M25.
A wider range of intercontinental services out of Manchester would be highly desirable to the business communities of Sheffield, Yorkshire and Humberside. The Minister said that Manchester airport was an important factor when considering the road network between Sheffield and Manchester. Northwest Airlines wishes to serve Boston from Manchester, and American Airlines and Pan-American wish to start New York services. The northern travelling community and those who visit the Yorkshire and Humberside area need those new services.
In his consideration of the north-south divide, the hon. Member for Wakefield missed an article further on in Agenda, which was not written by a Member of Parliament and which states:
Looking south across the river from the Armstrong Centre the Metro Centre, symbol of the North East's recent

resurgence, shines out like a beacon. The largest out-of-town shopping development in Europe, it features miles of bright shopping malls that attract the shoppers by the coachload from all over the country. The Metro Centre represents a total investment of some £200 million".
The article states that the developer
also hopes to get the go-ahead for a £50 million Metro Centre style complex in Middlesbrough
on a 100-acre site. I do not consider that an example of the north-south divide.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to recognise the north-south divide. In my constituency, which is just below the hon. Gentleman's constituency, there is a division between the east and the west of that area, part of which is within the travel-to-work area of Sheffield. In Renishaw, where the pit is being closed, the unemployment rate was 18·6 per cent. in April and had risen by 2·3 per cent. since February. In Eckington south, unemployment is 17 per cent. and in Killamarsh it is 15·4 per cent. In the western part of my constituency unemployment is as low as 5 per cent. and falling in Gosforth Valley and in Dronfield. That reflects social division on a massive scale and shows that many of the problems mentioned by hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) are endemic throughout south Yorkshire.

Mr. Patnick: As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) managed to bring north-east Derbyshire into the debate on Northern Ireland, I suppose he can now move the east midlands a little further down the road into north Yorkshire and Humberside. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) usually speaks for the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Barron: I speak with no one's voice but my own. The hon. Gentleman complains about my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire North-East (Mr. Barnes), yet he spends two or three minutes talking about the metro centre in Newcastle, which is considerably further from Humberside and Yorkshire than north-east Derbyshire is.

Mr. Patnick: I did not give the hon. Gentleman credit for being so quick. If he is a little more patient than usual, I shall explain why I used that example.
Unemployment in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rother Valley is 14·2 per cent.; in that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, it is 11·6 per cent.; in that of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), 9·9 per cent.; and in that of the hon. Member for Wakefield, 11·3 per cent. I obtained those figures from the research note in the Library on unemployment in the constituencies.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to know what unemployment in Halifax is. In 12 months' time the KP Foods factory there will close with 1,000 job losses, and the Rowntree factory "might not" close in two years' time but if it does 2,500 jobs will be lost.

Mr. Patnick: Sheffield, Central has the fifth highest unemployment rate in the country—23·2 per cent. I know the facts and figures.
I have spoken before about British Rail trains. The east coast main line to Donacaster is a fantastic line. It will soon be electrified. Money has been spent on it. The


London to Leeds service is due to open in October this year. Sadly, the line that Sheffield is on, the midland main line, can only be described as atrocious.
When Sheffield had the huge steelworks, a vast number of employees had work. That work disappeared when the works closed down. Sheffield had its problems, and many people were unemployed. Small firms in Sheffield are now springing up, and a survey by the council—it is not of my political thinking—revealed that in the east end of Sheffield new firms were taking on employees, and council statistics show that unemployment in the Sheffield travel-to-work area is falling. [Interruption.]Do Opposition Members wish to intervene? If not, I shall continue.
The official number of unemployed people in Sheffield is coming down—by 3,247 in one year, with the total down by 14 per cent. Success and development create activity that is contagious. Confidence is being restored and employment opportunities are becoming available. The effect is not confined to one area. It is spreading like the ripples of a pebble thrown into a pond and benefiting people in other areas. Sheffield is not alone in that, but it is a classic case of a city that has picked itself up by the bootstraps and got on with the job of making itself great again.
On 21 April 1988, Mr. Winter, the director of land and planning, stated that the total value of schemes for development in Sheffield -I could not believe the figures but they are here for any hon. Member to see—was £1·3 billion. That will give us 30,000 permanent jobs and 10,000 temporary jobs in construction.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley wanted to know what my remarks had to do with Sheffield. There is a project called "Junction 34" in Sheffield. It is a proposed shopping complex with a large number of retail outlets. It will be built on derelict land at a cost of £230 million. Marks and Spencer has shown an interest in the site, as has Savacentre. Debenhams and Sears are interested, too. The site contains 100,000 sq ft of leisure facilities, quite apart from the shopping complex and, believe it or not, parking for 10,000 cars. Yet according to the hon. Member for Wakefield, despair, desolation and doom are imminent.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman is making great claims about that proposal. Many of the shops that opened in Rotherham town centre under the Rotherham enterprise zone scheme are now closed. It is hardly an area of massive growth.

Mr. Patnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. The size of the Rotherham enterprise zone increased and increased. I remember that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was Secretary of State for the Environment, Sheffield was offered an enterprise zone, but it was prepared to accept it only on conditions. I do not know where the hon. Member for Rother Valley gets his facts, but the enterprise zone has had to be increased to accommodate the firms that want to move into the area.
An urban development corporation has been set up in Sheffield. We have received £50 million from the Government, a derelict land grant for Junction 34 and £10 million for facilities at the canal basin. Everything is coming together, and the confidence in the area should be recognised.
An article appeared on 20 July in the commercial and industrial property guide of The Star which said:
Record year for regiona) investments is forecast. Rising business confldence in Sheffield could mean another record breaking year for investment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
In the article, Paul Gilmartin said:
The record breaking trend looks set to continue. There is a marked increase in business confidence … the current year looks like breaking all records".
On the same page, another article said:
Shops at heart of inner city renewal … Government guidelines and local authority policies on shopping ate not making the most of the beneflts that retailing can bring, says Stuart Robinson, of Hillier Parker Planning.
I refer the hon. Member for Wakefield to a most interesting article that appeared in the Yorkshire Post on 28 July. It says:
Factory values surge as industry expands. A surge in the value of factories and warehouses during 1988 and a shortage of building to meet presenl: demand is reported in West Yorkshire by the Leeds office of King and Co.
During the past 12 months, approximately 1,500,000 sq ft of new buildings have been constructed in the region for occupiers who include William Morrison, Northern Foods, Thorn EMI and Uniroyal.
I said earlier that firms such as Marks and Spencer will invest, not in areas that it thinks are declining but in areas that are improving. Such an area is Yorkshire and Humberside.
The article continues:
There is a dire shortage of sites capable of development with buildings in excess of 40,000 sq ft"—
There are no prizes for guessing where that is—
but at Wakefield 80 acres of imainly agricultural land is about to be brought into warehouse and industrial use. The land adjoins the Normanton and Whitwood Industrial Hstates at Junction 31 of the M26, midway between the M1 and A1".
The list of firms that have moved into that area is quite unbelievable. The article says:
More than 215 acres have already been developed at this location where occupiers include Panasonic UK, Associated Fresh Foods, Hewlett Packard, Argos Distributors, Linfood, Tibbett and Britten, Miller Mining, Nestle (UK), Burtons Gold Medal Biscuits, the Halifax Building Society and Sleepeezee.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman is making my case for me. Where there is the infrastructure—it is to the credit of the Labour-controlled local authority in Wakefield that those firms have come to the area—it is possible to attract inward investment. That is precisely the point that I made in my speech.

Mr. Patnick: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech and it contained nothing but gloom and despondency. Anybody would think that all we have in the region, apart from the hon. Member for Halifax, are KP nuts and coal mining. There is more to Yorkshire and Humberside than those two industries.

Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Halifax and Marks and Spencer. Would he care to give his comments on Reliance Hosiery, which employs 600 people in Halifax? That company is deeply concerned now that interest rates are rising so high. When I visited the company I was told that it was worried. It supplies Marks and Spencer and is threatened with takeover. It really is doom and gloom in Halifax at present. If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me some good news about one of the factories, I should be happy to hear it.

Mr. Patnick: No doubt the hon. Lady can put her own case. I thought that she had something to say.

Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman will ensure that we do not have time to speak.

Mr. Patnick: I am sorry about that. I recollect that it was not so long ago that I sat in the Chamber trying to participate in a debate when the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was speaking. One would have thought that he had suddenly become deaf to those of us facing him, but that he had an ear in the back of his head and was able to hear his colleagues. At least I have given hon. Members a chance to intervene, even the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I have been more than generous. —[Interruption.]It is always good to hear the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, whether he is sitting, standing or keeping quiet.
On behalf of Yorkshire and Humberside I should like to argue for the Channel tunnel link—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Halifax wish to speak?

Mrs. Mahon: I asked about Marks and Spencer.

Mr. Patnick: I shall sit down and allow the hon. Lady to speak, but she does not stand when I offer her the Floor.
The Channel tunnel link is needed for Yorkshire and Humberside.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman must be joking.

Mr. Patnick: I did not think that the hon. Gentleman was a little Englander. I thought he accepted that the time left to the Civil Aviation Authority and airport officials was short. They cause so much inconvenience to people at Manchester, Luton and east midlands airports when they go on strike. When the tunnel is built there will be another way to reach the continent. Time is running out for those people who, every year around holiday time, incon-venience travellers, not just from my constituency, but from Yorkshire and Humberside.
The chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Confederation of British Industry said:
The Government and BR need to commit themselves to a direct link".
Just so that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby knows how even-handed I am, I shall tell the House that the Trades Union Congress warns that the area will lose out further to the south unless it has such a link. Both sides of the great dichotomy—the CBI and the TUC—recognise that, but no doubt the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, as ever, will know more about it.
In conclusion—everybody will be pleased to hear that —the economy in Yorkshire and Humberside is good and improving. We have all the ingredients that I have listed. It is time that residents appreciated that they have initiative, ability and talent and that the banner of Yorkshire and Humberside, together with initiatives, current and planned, should enable us to go forward. If we appreciate that, the confidence can become infectious. We must draw on the region's strengths—the availability of work and opportunity. Good news will travel. The upward climb of Yorkshire and Humberside will continue.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barasley, West and Penistone): It is refreshing to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) praise Sheffield council, of which he used to

be a member. It is one of the local authorities that has been laced by the Govemment on many occasions for the way it runs the city. It was laced irrespective of the fact that the auditor said that it was one of the best-run cities in the country and proved that the authority was right in the direction it was taking.
The hon. Member for Hallam referred to metro developments and to the amount of money that is being spend on Junction 34. It is true that developments are taking place—but they all seem to be shopping and leisure developments. What about manufacturing industry? Why should that not make progress as well? We should turn our minds to those questions during the debate.
It is all very well for other developments to take place, but they depend on people being able to spend money. They are all consumer-oriented. We do not have the manufacturing industry to make the money or the people in employment to earn it, so no one can spend it.
Up to a point I applaud some of the things that have happened because of enterprise zones. They have proved a point. However, only last week a young man asked why we in Barnsley could not have the same facilities as other areas or the same benefits to industry in the form of rents and rates and developments. By the time that he had finished talking, it was quite obvious that although the industry in which he worked in Dodworth had not been there very long, it was upping sticks and moving because it could get preferential rates and development rates in an enterprise zone not too far away. Developments in enterprise zones mean, by and large, that there have been fewer, a lack of, or a rundown in, developments elsewhere.
I agree that all is not doom and gloom in Yorkshire and Humberside, but I am concerned when I see the wealth and prosperity in the south and south-east, and the way in which that reflects on the area in general. In makes me ask why some of that prosperity is not coming north and why it is not in Yorkshire and Humberside. We are one of the most beautiful areas in England environmentally——

Mr. Barry Field: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why, according to the House of Commons Library statistics to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) referred, the Isle of Wight has an unemployment rate of 11·3 per cent. and why in the recent wages survey we were the third lowest and only just behind Northera Ireland? We should like to see some of the prosperity of Yorkshire come south, to the Isle of Wight.

Mr. McKay: I can add to that, because the area that I am talking about is not the third lowest; it is the second. I am referring to the area in which I live and for which I am developing my argument—[Interruption.] Oh yes, we have a male unemployment rate of 27 per cent. Hon. Members can study that fact as much as they want. I am referring to Government figures, which can be found in censuses and in the employment figures. If the hon. Member for Hallam waits and lets me develop my argument, he will see what I am talking about. He is jumping in when he should not not do so. I think that he now realises that he made a mistake in jumping in then. I hope that he will realise that more as I continue.
I am asking why that wealth, prosperity and employment do not come north. I accept that, although there is a north-south divide, parts of the south are probably less prosperous than some parts of the north. Parts of the north are not too badly off, thank you very


much, but, by and large—and that is what we are talking about—it is easier to get work in the south than it is in the north. Manufacturing and other industries are moving to the south and to the south-east, not to the north. That is what we must put our minds to.
Instead of considering only unemployment, we should look also at those in employment because those statistics are probably a better reflection than the unemployment figures. When one considers the figures for those in employment in Great Britain and compares them with the figures for Yorkshire and Humberside, one can see what quite clearly is happening. In agriculture, forestry and fisheries, the figures are almost equal. In Great Britain there has been a drop of 18·9 per cent. and in Yorkshire and Humberside the figure is 18·8 per cent.
For energy and water supplies there has been a drop of 28·7 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole, but a drop of 35·2 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humberside. In manufacturing, there has been a drop of 16·6 per cent. in Great Britain against a drop of 22·4 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humberside. For construction, the figures are 9·8 per cent. and 6·6 per cent. respectively. Only in the service industries has there been a regeneration of employment. In Great Britain there has been an increase of 9·1 per cent. and in Yorkshire and Humberside 12 per cent.
The manufacturing side of Yorkshire and Humberside has disappeared. The steelworks, collieries and engineering plants have gone. Over the period during which the figures that I have quoted were calculated, investment in the United Kingdom as a whole was 30 per cent. In Yorkshire and Humberside it dropped to 22 per cent. That clearly shows that investment is not coming to the area.
A survey was taken which covered Great Britain and in particular focused on Yorkshire and Humberside, south Yorkshire and my constituency. It found that, of all the areas in Britain, Yorkshire and Humberside was the worst. It futher found that in Yorkshire and Humberside, south Yorkshire was the worst. It showed that there is a difference in the rates of unemployment in south Yorkshire and in Yorkshire and Humberside.
Last year, the unemployment rate on Humberside was 14·1 per cent. In north Yorkshire it was only 9·1 per cent. Therefore, as I said earlier, some parts are worse than others. In south Yorkshire, the rate was 17 per cent. and in west Yorkshire it was 11·9 per cent. In some of the areas in my constituency, there is a male unemployment rate of 27 per cent. The rate varies throughout my constituency and is 18 per cent. in parts and as low as 6 per cent. which is fairly normal for the area.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I will be brief. I want to consider the difference between the south-east and Yorkshire and Humberside in the annual average unemployment rates. It is easy to see the changes that have taken place since 1979. They are not so drastic in the south-east, but they are drastic in Yorkshire and Humberside. It is also clear from the figures that when some parts of the country are coming out of the recession fairly quickly, the Yorkshire and Humberside area is coming out of it sluggishly and slowly. It needs pump-priming.
I believe that certain things should happen. Major local authorities have investment companies which, by and large, have been very successful in bringing limited prosperity to their areas. However, the Government have issued a consultation paper on local government investment in companies which clearly shows that they are

looking at this area. It would be wrong of the Government to do what the document suggests. The investment companies represent part of local government that is a success. If central Government see success in local government, they want to take it away.
The Government must look again at dereliction grants. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) raised that point in a parliamentary question. Dereliction grants are working the wrong way in Yorkshire and Humberside. Unless those grants are used to clear dereliction for environmental reasons as well as for the hard reasons, Yorkshire and Humberside will be hit.
The Channel tunnel must have through trains to the north. It looks as if all the infrastructure for the Channel tunnel is going to the south. We are talking about fast links between the Channel tunnel and London. We need a fast Iink between the tunnel and the north. We want marshalling yards and customs sheds in Yorkshire and Humberside,
The infrastructure in Yorkshire and Humberside badly needs replacing; that includes the water mains, sewers and roads. The airports, Leeds and Bradford, Humberside and Manchester—many people from Yorkshire and Humberside use Manchester airport—need regional money for expansion. There is also the cross-Pennine motorway. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Transport will receive a lot of letters from members of the Green party, who will accuse him of ripping up the countryside.
Those are just a few of the matters, and it is a pity that we do not have another hour and a half in which to develop the arguments further.

Mr. Gary Waller: I felt impelled to take part briefly in this debate, because I did not recognise the picture presented by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I believe that during the past few years, we have seen great improvements in the infrastructure and the prospects for industry and for jobs in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
The textile industry bears little relation to the one which the hon. Gentleman gave the impression of knowing. The decline in jobs has been going on for far longer than the past nine years. I am sure he will recognise that there has been a decline in employment in the clothing and textile industry for many years. It was caused not so much by the actions of any Government—Labour or Conservative—as by changes in technology and in the need to compete with many other countries.
During recent years, that decline has levelled out, largely due to the efforts of the textile industry itself—by improved design, by better marketing and by commitment by management and work force alike to make the industry compete effectively. That has taken place during the past few years, and has enabled the industry to offer more jobs. It is certainly true that many companies have had to reduce their work force, but, if they had resisted the urge to modernise, I am quite convinced that the number of jobs in the industry today would be much smaller.
The Yorkshire and Humberside area has a great reservoir of skills—it is a superb environment, as hon. Members have said—and in the next few months it will benefit from a great new asset—the electrification of the east coast main line. The message that should go forth


from this debate is not that Yorkshire and Humberside is an area in decline, but that it is looking to people in industry and enterprise throughout Britain and, indeed, abroad, who recognise its assets, to come to the region.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wakefield spoke as he did, and that other Opposition Members share his view. People listen to what is said in the House and will hear the impression given of our region. If they feel that the area is declining, they are far less likely to put their money and their resources into it. If the message goes out that not only is the area not in decline, but that there are pockets that are expanding fast—that that impetus can spread and the region can and will expand rapidly given the will—we shall be halfway to success. That is the message that I want to go out tonight, and I am afraid that it is a very different message from that which we hear so often in the House and outside from Opposition Members.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I would like to comment briefly on the somewhat myopic view of some Conservative Members about Yorkshire and Humberside. I remind hon. Members that there are good things in Yorkshire and Humberside and good things in my constituency. However, unemployment throughout the region on the adjusted figures for May 1988 was 10·1 per cent., which is more than 237,000 people out of work.
There are other casualties of the past eight years. There are 25,000 people on community programme schemes in Yorkshire and Humberside, and some 88 per cent. of them are on part-time schemes. That hardly represents a healthy income going into a household, especially if it is the only one. More than 14,000 people are on the enterprise allowance scheme, and more than 42,000 are on youth training schemes.

Mr. Patnick: rose——

Mr. Barron: No, I shall not give way. I know that the hon. Gentleman gave way to me, but I do not have much time.
The success rate of YTS in the Rotherham area is below 30 per cent. in terms of young people coming off schemes and going into full-time work. It is no use trying to gloss over these figures. They are not just statistics. They are people, many of whom live in households in what is deemed to be poverty. We must debate these issues to let those people know that we have not forgotten them, although we are talking about growth in the region.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) invite people to come to the region. The Minister is aware that Opposition Members have been instrumental in bringing it to his attention. Between 1978–79 and 1986–87, regional development grant to Yorkshire and Humberside was cut by 50 per cent. Earlier this year, it was abolished, and it is now to be awarded selectively. I am worried that people who did not come in great numbers before may not come at all now because of that reduction. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
Wearing my hat as the chairman of the Yorkshire group of Labour Members, I would like to tell the Minister that we have met many people from the region during the past 12 months. We have met people from the British

Road Federation who are worried about the Sheffield-Manchester link and routes in the Aire valley, and are anxious that the Al-Ml link should go ahead as speedily as possible now that it has received some commitment from the Government.
People are also worried about infrastructure such as railways. They are anxious that, since it looks as though we shall have the Channel tunnel, we should not lose out. We must ensure that, at least in one part of the region, we have an inland port, a Customs clearance depot or a major area where freight can be put on trains to be taken directly under the Channel, so that we can participate in some of the expenditure that will be made.
Has anything been done in relation to the correspondence that the Minister had with the Yorkshire and Humberside development association about larger factory units? If we have made any headway, the Minister will know that the size of factory units is just as important as their number. We want to ensure that the right type of units are being built in the region to help us attack poverty and unemployment there as soon as practicable.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby): We are tonight talking about the most beautiful, the best and certainly the biggest part of the country. We are talking about God's own county. It is extraordinary that the Minister has had the insensitivity to wear the red rose of Lancashire in his lapel. That shows either extraordinary insensitivity or a declaration of support for the trans-Pennine group, which is dedicated to the development of both sides of the Pennines.
The area, of which we on this side of the House are so proud because so many of us come from it, has been badly hit by the Government. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) said—he placed his hopes on shopping centres in a speech that was more of a working men's club comedy routine that should have had a "com sec" rather than a Deputy Speaker in charge of it—our destiny lies in industry. It lies in making things and selling them to the world.
Yorkshire and Humberside is the industrial heart of Great Britain. It generates the power, produces the coal, the steel and the textiles, and does the fishing. That is where our destiny lies, and it is the part of the economy which has been so grievously hit by the Government, particularly by the economic policies that they pursued from 1979 to 1983. In that period the Government closed one fifth of our manufacturing capacity and lost nearly one third of our manufacturing jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Hinchliffe) pointed out, that process of closures continues. The Government have inflicted damage on Yorkshire and Humberside from which we will take years to recover and for which the Government will never be forgiven.
The region is the first to suffer and the last to recover. Even now unemployment in Humberside is 12 per cent., which is 3 per cent. over the British average. In Grimsby it is 12 per cent. on the Government's figures and 17 per cent. on the real figures. In Grimsby, male unemployment is 15·7 per cent. Grimsby is not a development area and it is difficult to see why it has been robbed of the urban programme status which it had.
The whole area desperately needs new development and new jobs, yet the Government have only handicapped our


efforts to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. They have erected obstacles. We have to compete against the superior power of the Scottish Development Agency to attract industry. We have to face the fact that when local government in Sheffield and Grimsby tries to encourage development, the Government hamstring it, imposes financial penalties on it and stops its efforts. We have no speculative factory development in Grimsby. The Government will not build, English Estates has not, and Grimsby council is not allowed to build because of the screws on its capital expenditure programme. The control of local government spending, which will get stronger, inhibits local authority efforts to provide facilities in which industry can develop.
We see from the capital expenditure consultation programme that the Government are foreshadowing further cuts in local government spending, and from the local government business paper that they are thinking of curtailing the current range of economic incentives that local authorities can provide. It is ludicrous to destroy industry as the Government have done, particularly in our area—that destruction has had particularly severe effects in the manufacturing heart of Britain—and not allow local authorities to rebuild those sectors.
Now we face another threat. The country is characterised by a Government from, for and by the south-east at the expense of areas such as Yorkshire and Humberside. As the prosperity in the south-east trickles down to our region—the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is correct to say that there are symptoms of a revival—we are belatedly getting the tail end of that improvement. Just as that is washing north, house prices are beginning to improve, unemployment is falling and development is beginning, the Government are stopping the process because of overheating in the south-east.
If there is overheating, it is certainly restricted to that part where house prices are reaching record levels and where there are skill shortages. Northerners are being lured down the Ml and the rail system to work in the south-east and go home at the weekends. That is where there is congestion. We in the north have none of those pressures. We need the development and the overspill, yet the north will be punished for the sins of the south-east.
The real problem is one of imbalance between areas. We need to spread development fairly and evenly, and to use the social capital and skills of the population. Tragically, this is the end of the golden weather for the Government. We are now beginning a massive deflation because of the size of the deficit in overseas and manufactured trade which the Government have allowed to develop because of their over-valuation of sterling.
That massive deflation—the increase in interest rates and the curtailment of economic activity because of overheating in the south-east—will penalise Yorkshire and Humberside quite disproportionately. It will mean one of two things. We may have an economic policy involving a high exchange rate maintained by high interest rates. In other words, we shall be paying the foreigner high interest rates to bring his money to this country to close a gap that we cannot now close by manufacturing exports. Such a policy would inflict further severe damage on manufacturing industry and therefore disproportionate damage on Yorkshire and Humberside.
If that policy does not work, foreigners will see the real state of health of the economy—that is how weak it is— and we shall have a sterling crisis by the end of the year,

which will mean astronomical interest rates to defend the pound. Either way, in the interests of protecting the financial economy, which is concentrated in the south-east of England, the north will suffer disproportionately and Yorkshire and Humberside and the manufacturing industry that is so important to us will be severely hit. That is a prospect that we look forward to with dread in Yorkshire and Humberside, and it could only come from a Government who do not know the area and who do not know the real world of manufacturing.
As I said, Yorkshire and Humberside has suffered disproportionately. A Labour Government will reconstruct the manufacturing industry in the manufacturing heart of this country. That will benefit our area, just as it has suffered under this Government. As part of that process of redevelopment, we shall give Yorkshire and Humberside the power to control and manage its own destiny. We shall do so through regional government. We shall give the regions the power to manage their own economies. We shall do so through regional development agencies on the pattern of the Scottish Development Agency, and by giving back the regional incentives that the Government have taken away to allow those areas to attract back the industry that has been lost.
We are proud of our area. We are proud of being Yorkshiremen and Humbersiders. We once led the country. We were once at the industrial heart of this country and we shall be again. Our message to the Government, who have done so much damage to industry, put in a dialect that the Minister will not understand, is "Gi'up, gi'ower and gerrout."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): I make no apology for wearing the red rose of Lancashire in the context of a debate on matters relating to Yorkshire and Humberside. It must gall the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and his hon. Friends to realise that I am a northern Member and a northern Minister; my constituency is even further north than that of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. It is a fallacy that my hon. Friends and I do not appreciate the problems of Yorkshire.
I am delighted that my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) have been able to participate. I know that others among my hon. Friends are interested in the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who I guess is waiting for the debate on the Settle-Carlisle railway, and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), who has recently joined us on the Front Bench and who is to be the Yorkshire Whip. I know how much my hon. Friends disagree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on introducing this debate. It has been fascinating to hear both sides of the story. The Yorkshire and Humberside region makes an important contribution to the national economy, accounting for about 8 per cent. of gross domestic product. GDP per person in 1984 was a little over £4,000—about 12 per cent. below the national average.
The area has a mixed economy, which has made parts of the region vulnerable to cyclical trends in traditional


industries. Nevertheless, there have been positive developments—to which some of my hon. Friends have referred. Areas of recent growth include the petrochemical industry on Humberside. Humberside has also seen growth in the frozen food sector. There has been considerable growth in financial and professional services centred on Leeds. Indeed, the importance of Leeds as a regional centre for such services has been growing steadily.
The House may find it interesting if I quote from a recent study by the CBI investigating industry in the area. I shall touch on just some of the headings to which the CBI report refers. Referring to demand and output in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, the CBI report says:
The general level of order intake is better than earlier this year. The home market is particularly buoyant … The area bounded by Leeds, Harrogate and York is being referred to by the building industry as 'the golden triangle.'
Indeed, I was in Doncaster only last week when the Labour leader there referred to Doncaster as "boom town".
The report goes on:
So far as steel is concerned, production remains at a high level …Coal—the super pits are producing good levels … Mechanical engineering—order books are better … Electrical and electronic engineering—very busy … Civil engineering—plenty of work about…House building in the private sector is having a very good period, with demand outstripping supply in many areas…Chemicals—this sector remains busy.
Much attention has been paid to the subject of clothing. The report says:
Companies are very busy … Textiles generally— working at high capacity levels … Telecom—performing at above planned levels, reflecting the increased affluence of the region … Rail services are well used, with InterCity being particularly busy … Confidence remains high. Ambitious investment plans for machinery and buildings will be followed through.
Surely that tells a different tale from the one that Opposition Members have been asking us to believe. What I have listed are the facts as presented by the CBI, an organisation which has been talking to people in the manufacturing and service industries. I appreciate that there are some difficulties and problems—inevitably there will be—but that is what the CBI is saying.
Those facts are borne out by the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Economic Unit, the report of which has been quoted by other hon. Members, as they should do because the unit has at heart the interests of the region. It reports:
The investment outlook is encouraging, with many companies planning significant expansion projects covering both buildings and capital equipment.
English Estates reports a 20 per cent. increase in factory sales and lettings in south Yorkshire, with increasing demands throughout the region. Unemployment is falling; it was 10·6 per cent. at the beginning of the year and was 101 per cent. in May. The fact that Opposition Members have referred to a shortage of factory space—a matter of which I am aware—reveals success in this region, as in others. Had the hon. Member for Great Grimsby been speaking from the Opposition Front Bench some years ago, he would no doubt have been complaining bitterly about empty factories. Now that we have the factories full and there is a shortage, we face a different problem. But it is a problem of success.
While I agree that there are difficulties, investment in and the achievements of the area are particularly good. In tourism, for example, Bradford now has a tourism development action plan and has been successful in developing and marketing its tourism assets. One need only consider the city's historical, literary and industrial heritage, its proximity to beautiful countryside and attractions such as the national museum of film, photography and television, to appreciate the potential of a place such as Bradford.
Sheffield, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam represents in part, is shortly to host the world student games, which will be the largest event of its type in the United Kingdom to date. All in all, one can tell a number of success stories.
I come to the problems of Wakefield. It is inevitable that when one decides to accord assistance to some areas rather than others there will be those who feel hard done by. That is particularly the case when, as has happened in the Wakefield area, there have been major closures in a particular industry over a relatively short period. There is little doubt that the loss of 11,000 jobs in the Wakefield area has had a major impact.
It is possible that Wakefield might be eligible for assistance from the European regional development fund, which is currently being restructured. Details of the eligibility of particular areas remain to be settled, and it is too early to predict the outcome, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will keep the interests of Wakefield closely in mind during the negotiations. In the meantime, Wakefield will continue to receive aid from the European Coal and Steel Community and to benefit from its priority status under the European social fund.
Wakefield has sought to make a case to have the status of the area reviewed. To avoid raising false hopes, I should say at the outset that it remains our intention, as stated in the White Paper, to keep the present map in place for the lifetime of this Parliament. The map was fixed at the end of 1984 after exhaustive discussions and representations. There are very good reasons for doing that. In setting up assisted areas, the primary intention is to influence private sector investment decisions, which have to be taken with a view to the medium to long term. To change the shape of the map too frequently would weaken the extent to which investment decisions can be influenced and thus undermine the purpose of the policy.
I accept that particular problems are being experienced in the Wakefield area, especially in the Castleford and Pontefract travel-to-work areas where many of the coal closures have taken place. It may be small consolation now, but when the time comes to review the map the case for changing the status of the Wakefield area will be taken into account particularly strongly. In the meantime, I know that officials of my Department and of other Departments in the region are in touch with officers in Wakefield to see what can be done for the area within current constraints. The hon. Member for Wakefield may be aware that I also met a delegation representing the enormous Conservative group on the council about these matters, so I am fully aware of the problems. I assure the hon. Gentleman that within the limits that I have specified we shall do what we can to understand and face the problems in the Wakefield area.
The Yorkshire and Humberside region has good long-term economic prospects. Its assets include specialised sites suitable for industry requiring access to deep


water, modern ports and good access to continental markets—factors that will be of increasing importance in 1992, with all the changes that will follow from that. The region so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam has a work force with a great deal to offer in a wide variety of areas.
Like my hon. Friends, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss what has been going on in the Yorkshire and Humberside area, but the Opposition must be careful not to talk down an area which in their own comments they recognise as an attractive and beautiful region both physically and geographically as well as in industrial and other ways. They must recognise that the strengths of the area have to be sold, rather than the weaknesses. If they continue to work as hard in that regard as those of my hon. Friends who so ably represent constituencies throughout the region, I am convinced that the strength that is so important to the region and to the country will continue in the future.
It is said that English cricket suffers when Yorkshire cricket is down. The sooner Yorkshire cricket reaches the standard that we have come to expect, the stronger will be the future of English cricket. I caution the whole House about the importance of this subject in the foreseeable future.

Orders of the Day — Rail privatisation

Mr. Keith Mans: Before setting out my proposals for further private investment in the railway system in this country, I congratulate the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), on his new appointment. His predecessor did much to improve efficiency within British Rail and encouraged private investment by his many activities. I hope that in winding up today's debate my hon. Friend will be able to give us encouragement and assurance that that process will continue and expand.
One of the Government's major successes has been the removal of many inefficient monopolies from the public sector to the private sector, where state subsidies have ceased and vast improvements in business efficiency have have taken place. They have provided choice where none existed before and have steadily turned themselves into consumer-led rather than producer-led organisations. Moreover, their investment policies have not been hamstrung by the public sector borrowing requirement. All this applies even to British Telecom, with competition provided by Mercury.
One of the last great monopolies left in the public sector is the railway system—still producer-led and still relatively inefficient. I hope to show that, by the provision of more private capital and by the introduction of consumer-oriented management techniques from the private sector, British Rail will be transformed in the coming few years. I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate and accordingly I shall be brief. I know that they have ideas that should be presented to the House.
We should build on what we have achieved already in privatising certain parts of the British Rail network. Equally, we should build on the experience of other industries that have recently been privatised. Within the rail network, catering at stations is often operated by private concerns. We have sold off the railway hotel chain and Sealink. The engineering section will soon be sold off. All these sell-offs have provided more money for British Rail to invest in infrastructure. It should be remembered that 80 per cent. of the rolling stock, apart from the trains that operate between pitheads and power stations, are already in private hands, amounting to 16,000 trucks. The privatisation that has taken place is already showing returns. An increased amount of freight is being carried by the railways on private trucks. An additional move has been taken by Foster Yeoman, which has bought its own locomotives.
The other experience on which we should base our plans is that of other recently privatised industries. I think especially of the airlines and the airport authorities. We can probably learn something from the soon-to-be-privatised electricity industry and the recently privatised bus companies.
I shall use a comparison between British Rail and British Airways to show what I feel may be the future for the rail network. A few years ago, both industries were nationalised, both were making losses, both were producer-led, both lacked investment and both were overmanned; most important of all, both were insensitive to the market and to the consumer. The change in British Airways since it was privatised has been dramatic. It is now the most profitable airline in the world and is showing


a clean pair of heels to its European competitors, many of which are still in the public sector and still state-subsidised, and almost all of which are making losses. Unfortunately, British Rail is still in the public sector, and is still suffering from the ills that I have mentioned.
It is worth mentioning the role played in the airways and the air transportation system by the British Airports Authority—again, a recently privatised concern. It runs our airports, together with many other concerns. It runs the terminal and approach facilities that aircraft need when they land and take off. It is interesting that different airlines and airliners use the same airways. At the same time, the airlines see no need to own the airports at their points of departure and destination. Equally, they see no need to operate any of the air traffic control equipment.
It is on that experience that I base my proposal for a privatised rail network. First, we should build upon our experience, especially in the freight operations of British Rail. We should encourage private companies to own and operate passenger trains on the present rail network. We already have one example. The Orient express is owned by a private company and the rails that it runs on are leased for a period from British Rail. As the process develops, we should aim for all the rolling stock on British Rail to be owned by private companies.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend not accept that the problem with the Orient express is that, although it leases the track, it has to accept British Rail workers, and that that has hampered its freedom to negotiate?

Mr. Mans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any future proposals would involve train crews and operators being employed not by British Rail but by the newly created companies.
If we ensure that new investment in the railways is provided by the private sector, capital will be released in the initial stages of privatisation for British rail to invest in the infrastructure—in the signalling equipment and in the track itself. The structure of British Rail would allow that to happen relatively easily, because money obtained from sale or leasing of track goes not to the Treasury but to the British Rail board. The advantage of such a procedure is that it is the only way to provide true competition, simply because consumers would be given a choice between companies' trains operating on the same line.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Like LMS and LNER.

Mr. Mans: I am not certain of the relevance of that comment.

Mr. Hughes: The relevance of the comment is that for decades LMS and LNER had a nice cosy arrangement not to compete with each other.

Mr. Mans: I do not think that that would happen in the case of the newly privatised British Rail network. I am much more inclined to think that the same situation would develop on the railways as followed the introduction of competition between British Airways and British Midland on the Glasgow-Heathrow route. If the hon. Gentleman had travelled on that service both before and after the introduction of competition, he would understand its

relevance to British Rail today. His rather anachronistic historical parallel has no bearing on the present circumstances.
My proposals would create true competition and a better service. Some inspired entrepreneur might actually suggest providing trains that guaranteed seats for the passengers. The airlines have guaranteed seats for years. They will even put on an extra aircraft at Heathrow to fly passengers to Glasgow, Manchester or Edinburgh if the first is full. That is precisely the sort of consumer service that we want to introduce on trains.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Like a jumbo jet.

Mr. Mans: Not necessarily. We could make do with a high-speed train.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is speaking on the basis of ignorance. Does he not realise that if he were to put on a train from, say, London to Glasgow, the passenger capacity would be equivalent to that of a jumbo jet? There would be capacity for about 400 passengers to transport perhaps two or three.

Mr. Mans: That is exactly the point that I am making. As part of its campaign, British Airways will put on an extra aircraft for three people. That shows that Opposition Members do not understand the importance of consumer choice. They do not really want the consumer to be able to sit down on a train; they would prefer him to stand. I can understand that, because I know the background to their arguments.
We are left, then, with a rail network composed of the track and the stations. Our first move should be to sell off the stations. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) produced an eminently sensible 10-minute Bill only a few days ago. I know that he wants to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that he will manage to do so, because I know that he has more to say on the subject.
As part of the sell-off of the stations, there must be a statutory obligation upon the new, private station companies to maintain the track and the signalling equipment in the vicinity of the station. The British Airports Authority has a similar statutory obligation to maintain all the runway aids, the radar and the other equipment which are needed by aircraft to land and take off. Therefore, the precedent exists, and experience has shown that BAA, as part of the private sector, offers a better service than that of old.
Once the stations have been sold off, we shall effectively have reduced British Rail to a national track authority. At that stage I believe that it would be advisable to make British Rail a public limited company. Ultimately, it would be responsible for the integrity of the network and for improvements, and it would derive its revenue from the train and station companies.
With the positive generation of cash at the start of the nationalisation process, present subsidies, which top nearly £7 million a year, could be rapidly reduced. In future, I believe that a partnership will develop between the individual train companies, local authorities and others to provide services in the rural areas. The recently privatised bus companies have already demonstrated the success of such partnerships.
There is a crying need for a railway link between Heathrow and Paddington and for a link between


Manchester airport and the line that already runs to the north-west. We should also make provision for private companies to build and operate trains on those new lines. The national track authority would have a statutory obligation to connect those links with the main network. It is now 150 years since our Victorian forebears drove the industrial revolution onwards and outwards on the back of a brand new railway network. Their entrepreneurial spirit and engineering feats are still an inspiration to us. We must re-create that spirit and release the rail network from the present stranglehold of the state monopoly which it has suffered for far too long. Let us encourage private capital, combined with individual initiative and business skill, to help to create a second golden age for our railway network.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I apologise for my hesitation in getting up, but I thought that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, called "Bob Dunn". I was looking round the Chamber for the recently sacked member of the Government.
I give you notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I wish to withdraw my subject for debate, which is No. 12 on the list.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) with increasing horror. He denigrated British Rail, which provides an excellent service, many times. Of course there are breakdowns, and of course trains are overcrowded, but if the Government provided more money for new trains and for track maintenance and signalling, none of that would happen. British Rail receives a smaller state subsidy than any other rail network in the Western world.

Mr. Conal Gregory: rose——

Mr. Cryer: I shall give way later, when I have developed my argument.
British Rail receives a subsidy to operate the provincial services, but the subsidy for the InterCity services is to be phased out. As a result, the high-speed trains are being driven into the ground. Those trains receive minimal maintenance because BR wants to keep the HSTs running in order to meet the strict financial limits that are placed upon it by the Government. The trains are often seedy and overcrowded, which is a direct result of the Government's financing limits.

Mr. Gregory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer: No, I shall not give way at the moment. I shall make my speech without the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) getting up and down like a jack-in-the-box. He must contain himself——

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend wants to give the hon. Gentleman some facts.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for York does not know many facts. If the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) interrupts, my speech will get longer and longer and other hon. Members who wish to speak will not be able to do so.
As Tory Members find it funny to laugh at public bodies, I remind them that when they talked about selling off British Rail Engineering workshops, unless he was lying to the House, the Minister said that he thought the standard of work was extremely high and that the

workshops had an excellent record of producing railway wagons and equipment for British Rail, but the hon. Member for Wyre seemed to suggest that British Rail had no virtues and was producing no new ideas or technology.
The high-speed trains are a demonstration of public innovation and high technology in railway operation. That technology, introduced under public ownership, has been sold to many railways in other countries throughout the world. It was an outrageous act by the Government—one of many—when they closed the workshops or forced them to be sold off.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was right to say that we have the experience of past years as a guide. Competition does not work. It results either in some companies going out of business and the winners taking all, or in comfortable cartel arrangements in which the notion of competition is simply and quietly pushed to one side.
In 1922, a Conservative Government compulsorily amalgamated a number of independent railway companies to form four railway companies which operated all but a handful of services throughout the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland, where the arrangements were linked to two of the major companies operating there. Even on the basis of the experience of Conservative Governments, the idea of competing railways under private ownership simply does not work.

Mr. Roger Knapman: In fact there were not just four railway companies at the time of nationalisation. The then Minister of Transport, Mr. Barnes, said:
On the assumption that the Bill receives Royal Assent in this Session … there will be transferred to public ownership some 60 railway undertakings".—[Official Report, 5 May 1947; Vol. 437, c. 36.]

Mr. Cryer: There was a handful—just 56. In terms of mileage, it was a tiny amount. The Stephens light railway was developed by Colonel Stephens in the 1920s, the Kent and East Sussex light railway operated about a dozen miles of grotty track, with equally grotty carriages and locomotives. In terms of mileage, locomotives and rolling stock a handful of railways were still privately owned, but they were largely irrelevant, and none of them operated into any main line stations in any major cities throughout the United Kingdom. Most of them were not even passenger railways. They were mostly freight branches serving junctions where the freight was transferred, and included a number of narrow-gauge railways which, of course, did not even operate to the standard gauge of 4ft 8½in.
I return to my original statement, that the great majority of railways, track and locomotives were taken over into the four major railway companies.

Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The point that I wished to interject at an earlier stage in his argument was that; he tried to contend that the railways were not efficient because the Government were starving them of funds. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework before making such outrageous allegations. The British Railways Board has not gone up to its external financing limit for a number of years. The Government made the facilities available, but they were not taken up because there were no opportunities for investment.

Mr. Cryer: The chairman of British Rail, a Tory Government appointee and no doubt sympathiser, made


that decision against the wishes of the staff of British Rail. If the hon. Gentleman enjoyed their confidence he would know that they are faced with shortages of maintenance facilities, equipment and materials——

Mr. Gregory: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said before.

Mr. Cryer: It is precisely what I said. Because of Government policy, British Rail is short of money. The hon. Gentleman must know that, although the HSTs provide an excellent service, they are scheduled for mileages beyond their capability unless they receive more maintenance, because there are not enough high-speed train units. British Rail and the Government will not invest jointly in more units, which would relieve the problem of breakdowns on the main passenger services.
I want to mention a proposed privatisation by the Government. The new Minister of State has not yet been to the Settle-Carlisle railway, although he will doubtless visit it to keep himself up to date. The Government have proposed that the section of railway from Settle junction to Carlisle should be sold off because British Rail has proposed its closure. Some time ago British Rail decided to run the line down and failed to provide adequate moisture protection for the viaduct at Ribblehead. That is an example of how a lack of adequate finance for our national rail network has led to stringent economies, which inevitably have their effect over time. Then decisions must be made on whether to spend large sums on structures such as the Ribblehead viaduct or to close them down.
British Rail proposed closure. That is wrong, and the Government should tell British Rail so. They should tell British Rail to keep the line open and exploit it to its full potential. If British Rail receives that instruction, I have no doubt that its chairman will take up the challenge, allocate more funds to the line and appoint more people to market it. It is quite capable of doing that. British Rail has promoted several lines in Scotland for tourism and made a success of it. It could do the job in this case in conjunction with the Friends of Settle-Carlisle Railway Association, who are keen to work co-operatively with British Rail, but who recognise the great difficulties involved in a private organisation taking over this 72-mile double track main-line system.
The railway has already improved from carrying 90,000 passengers in 1983–84 to carrying more than 300,000 a year now. British Rail says that the maximum potential has been reached, but that is clearly not true. There are relatively few trains on the line now, and with more services there could be a much greater increase in passenger usage.
Closure would mean increased hardship. The Minister asked the transport users' consultative committee to examine the possibility of finding greater evidence of hardship. Since the last hearings of the TUCC, new services have been introduced. I understand from a ministerial reply that it is up to the TUCC to decide how it will assess that evidence and whether it will take written objections or hold hearings. So far, it has decided against hearings. That is wrong. I urge the Yorkshire and North-West TUCC to hold public hearings so that people can explain the greater hardship that would be suffered.
More time is required, in any event—the Minister has said that the committee must report by November. That is not enough time—if the Minister has decided that the line must be sold off by April 1989—to allow any private organisation to take over its operations and continue the expansion, in theory, of passenger traffic. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to allow more time to overcome any hardship and to consider the proposals that are put forward. I do not think that private ownership is a tenable alternative.

Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman said that British Rail does not believe that the number of passengers who use the line can be increased. The hon. Gentleman and I are anxious that the line should continue in use—we are both vice-presidents of the Friends of Settle-Carlisle Association—and, like the hon. Gentleman, I am strongly opposed to closure. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the line's long-term prospects might be enhanced if it were run by a body more strongly committed than British Rail to its future and to increasing traffic? Would it not be improved by the input of private capital and by its being run by a consortium of local authorities and passenger transport executives?

Mr. Cryer: Local authorities have offered in excess of £500,000 for the restoration of the Ribblehead viaduct. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they contribute to a diesel-multiple unit service and to a linking bus service between Garsdale and Hawes. That is a good basis for an integrated system, but I should like the line to continue operating for an experimental period of at least two years, linked to the Friends of Settle-Carlisle Railway Association, to see whether the type of promotion that the Minister mentioned with regard to the North Yorkshire Moors railway and the Severn Valley railway could be used by the Friends of Settle-Carlisle Railway Association. The revenue that it would yield would be allocated to that line, which would require British Rail to budget on a much narrower basis for the Settle to Carlisle section.
That possibility should be considered, because many thousands of people have a particular affection for the line. They use it to travel to work, photograph it and use it for pleasure because it is a magnificent railway set in beautiful scenery.
The notion of trying to sell off the line is a dead duck. I therefore think that the enthusiasm, dedication and energy of bodies such as the Friends of Settle-Carlisle Railway Association—all its members are volunteers and contribute because of their affection for the line—should be used to support the line, which is unlikely to meet all its capital and revenue costs over a long period. The time scale for any alternative is too short. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is nodding in agreement.
The hon. Member for Esher mentioned a friend of his who was talking about facts. I was the founder of the Keighley and Worth Valley railway preservation society. I was its chairman for the first 10 years and negotiated its purchase from British Rail. That agreement formed the basis for the purchase of the Severn Valley railway and the North Yorkshire Moors railway. I have carried out every job on a steam and diesel-operated light railway. I have fired and driven locomotives, including the largest class of locomotives such as 2–10–0 and Evening Star, as well as


small tank locomotives. I have maintained the boilers, the track, the platforms and the stations. Therefore, I know what I am talking about from hard graft and experience.
I have experienced the difficulties of raising money to buy a railway and finance it. I know that operating steam locomotives is a difficult business and that the amateur organisations do it with great skill, dedication and professionalism. When I say "amateur organisations", that is not a term of denigration. The Severn valley, the Worth valley and North Yorkshire Moors railways are operated to full professional standards. Railways cannot be operated to any other standard, or there would be the danger of accidents.
Having said that, to run steam locomotives over a 140-mile round trip is rather different from running them over a 10-mile branch such as the Keighley and Worth Valley railway. The Minister's predecessor suggested at a press conference that private owners of the Settle-Carlisle railway could borrow a few locomotives from the Worth Valley railway. The Worth Valley railway, with dozens of dedicated volunteers working through the winter, has great difficulty getting four or five steam locomotives ready for the summer each year. That is for a 10-mile branch, let alone for a 140-mile branch.
The purchasers of the railway would have 21 viaducts, 14 tunnels and 325 bridges, all of which have to be maintained to a safe standard by the operators of the railway. It is impossible for a private preservation society to do that.
The Minister's predecessors suggested that in order to encourage private ownership there should be some sort of dowry. On 16 May the Minister said:
British Rail would undertake to lift, remove and pay for continuously welded rail surplus to the private owner's operating requirements. That could amount to up to £850,000."—[Official Report, 16 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 678–79.]
Today I asked the Minister
what information he has as to what mileage of rail on the Settle to Carlisle section of British Rail is continuously welded flat bottomed rail, as to its current value and as to what would be the replacement cost of flat bottomed or bull-head track of equivalent weight; and if he will make a statement.
The answer from the Minister was:
This information is not available.
The Minister claimed that replacing continously welded flat bottomed rail would provide £850,000. That would not be much good if the new owners had to pay out £850,000 to replace the rail being taken out. We do not know from the Minister how much rail is involved anyway. I merely use that to demonstrate the impracticability of the Minister's suggestion to sell the Settle-Carlisle line to private owners.
There is the question of access. Settle is several miles north of Hellifield. Are the private owners to be given running rights over British Rail? The safety standards of the railway inspectorate would have to be observed. Would the trains run under the wires regularly at Carlisle? Would they go to Kingmoor shed, which has recently been closed, for maintenance facilities? The railway inspectorate will require adequate maintenance and inspection facilities for the locomotives and carriages used on the railway.
What about revenue for diversions? Diversions for the fiscal year ended 30 March 1988 amounted to 320 trains. Would British Rail be allowed to divert over the track? That is unknown and cannot be subject to negotiation.

Any potential purchaser has to know what the difficulties are and how they will be solved before embarking on such a vast enterprise.
The Government seem to think that a light railway order operation under the Light Railways Act 1912 at a maximum speed of 25 mph is a potential alternative, because they have not said that that should be ruled out. I should rule it out because travelling at 25 mph for a 140-mile round trip does not seem the most exciting way of spending several days out with the family—that is the amount of time that it would take.
All those points remain unanswered, and in my view they are insoluble. There is no millionaire on the horizon —the Minister's predecessor called him "Mr. Big"—who will spend several million pounds in affection for the Settle-Carlisle railway, to privatise it to the Government's satisfaction. In any case, if the Government are to privatise any part of the railways, the Settle-Carlisle railway is the one that makes the least sense. If one were talking about the Victoria-Gatwick service, that would at least have some shred of logic and credibility, but the Settle-Carlisle line has no potential in that regard.
The hon. Member for Wyre, who initiated the debate, talked about the potential of private ownership. Private ownership would go for sections such as Victoria-Heathrow. It would not be interested in maintaining the Settle-Carlisle line—or other such routes which run through rural areas—with its 135 bridges, the maintenance of Ribblehead viaduct, and Blea Moor tunnel, which is nearly two miles long. Private ownership would not be prepared to take that on. It would shut lines and stations, sack staff and concentrate on the most lucrative and profitable areas.
Unless the provincial sector receives the £450 million subsidy that is currently paid for its services, that whole sector will go by the board. Why should only the south-east sector, which is subsidised by British Rail, get a subsidy, but not a rural line in Yorkshire, which gives access to the Yorkshire dales?
It is important that British Rail should have all possible sources of revenue—from stations, franchising and catering—from wherever it can get the money to help it cover the costs of the rural, relatively more lightly used branch and main-line services, which will inevitably cost money in maintenance because of the heavy costs that we have inherited from our Victorian ancestors.
I stress to the Minister that the future of the Settle-Carlisle line should be as part of British Rail. which should provide the through services with help from such dedicated bands of volunteers as the Friends of Settle-Carlisle Railway Association. I hope that that will be the future of the Settle-Carlisle line, and not the bleak future of closure, which will bring dismay and horror and which, if that is what happens, will be regarded as an act of unparalleled corporate vandalism by the Government.

Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Rippon): I too wish to address my remarks primarily to the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway which runs the length of my constituency; I too am a vice-president of the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Railway Association to which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) have referred. I reflect not only my own concerns and those of


Opposition Members, but especially those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), whose constituency is also affected by the line, and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Lee) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who spoke in the previous debate.
It is particularly appropriate, and indeed necessary, to raise this issue tonight because the brochure which is going out to people who have expressed an interest in purchasing the line is being sent out this week and may even be in the post tonight. It is intended that there will be a seminar in early September for those who respond to that brochure—the prospective purchasers—and the timetable demands that outline bids should be in by the end of September, with a decision due in November. Almost all that time falls when the House is in recess, so it is important that we should have our say tonight, because the period when we return will be crowded.
That brochure will detail the package of support which has already been pledged. It is important to highlight what is already on the table. There is £1 million from English Heritage for the Ribblehead viaduct. The Training Commission is offering support for projects which are based on the Jarvis recommendations. The English and Cumbrian tourist boards are planning to support tourist projects—for example, accommodation and visitor centres adjacent to the line. The Development Commission for Rural England has pledged up to £100,000 for Ribblehead. The Countryside Commission has pledged £100,000 to match capital invested in tourist projects and commercial concerns like Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, Grand Metropolitan and construction companies have also pledged support to a purchaser.
Those pledges are heavily tourist-oriented. They offer the chance that a private operator can do what British Rail cannot—as it is debarred from acting in this way—and combine rail and road traffic and offer packages that involve part rail and part road transport. That would open up a new market for tourism in the Yorkshire Dales.
Privatisation can succeed, but it needs more flexibility and promotion by the Government. To that end, there are several ways in which the Government can materially improve the prospects of the successful privatisation of the line.
First, I have learned from British Rail that it will be unable to give any figures about the anticipated revenue or level of passengers on the line. British Rail compiles its figures for another purpose, and it has been advised by its legal advisers that it may not give estimates of the level of passengers or revenue. It may not even refer to estimates by other bodies such as Cumbria county council.
It will be a bizarre prospectus if it cannot tell a prospector what he is going to purchase. There will be a blind man's buff in the prospectus. I urge the Minister to investigate that problem. I recognise that British Rail considers that to be a genuine problem, but I want the Minister to investigate to ensure that the information will enable a proper commercial decision to be made.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to the November deadline. I want the Minister to give a clear undertaking that if serious negotiations are in train, given the very short time that any operator will have to prepare a bid from September when he receives the detailed

information—which will be very weighty, as it will include a long list of all the assets associated with the line—and assemble his capital, he will not apply the guillotine at that deadline. I want the Minister to undertake to proceed with his negotiations if that happens.
I pay tribute to the efforts made by the Minister's predecessor on behalf of the line. His predecessor said that if British Rail were authorised to cease operations, it would have four months to do so. That is not long enough. We need at least six months. I urge the Minister to make that concession now, as the brochures are sent out, so that purchasers have a proper idea of what is in store for them.
Local authorities have offered help under conditions. Any purchaser who takes on the line will have to accept the capital structures on the basis of "make do and mend". He will face the prospect of annual costs outstripping annual revenues. It would be more helpful if local authorities felt able to revert to an offer of an annual grant towards the operating costs of the line. I appreciate that they already do that in certain aspects. It would help if they upped that figure and in return demanded certain social services such as winter services and services at the beginning and end of the day.
I welcome British Rail's assurance that the private operator can have the option of running his trains over British Rail track to Carlisle into Hellifield and, if he wishes, to run trains to Blackburn via Clitheroe. Will the Minister raise that point with the local authorities, so that they may restructure their support?
Local needs are important. We must not get the idea that we are talking exclusively about a tourist operation. The local needs in that part of the world, with its severe winters and its high proportion of elderly people, must not be overlooked. With increased revenue from tourist operations—the £10·50 day return from Leeds to Carlisle is a very cheap option at the moment—plus some bridging finance for the operating costs, we are in sight of closing the gap between opérating costs and revenue, which would enable the line to continue.
This is a very sensitive and political issue. The Minister must appreciate that the Settle-Carlisle line is seen as the symbol of a history of a culture and a character. It is very difficult for me to explain to my constituents why it is right that taxpayers should be asked to pay £5 million to restore the Albert memorial, but it is not right to pay a fraction of that to restore the Ribblehead viaduct. Take those two together, and the Ribblehead viaduct is overwhelmingly the more important monument to our nation's history and has the greater promise for the nation's future.
I support privatisation. I do not seek pure subsidy, but I demand a real commitment to ensure that the venture succeeds. I hope that the Minister will ride the line. Indeed, he must ride the line before he makes his decision, so that he not merely feels its history, but sees its opportunities.
A few days ago on the back page ofThe Times there was a splendid photograph of Mallard hauling a steam train across the Ribblehead viaduct. That symbolises what is at stake—it is not just a dramatic photograph, but a symbol of what there is to save and to build on. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to those points.

Mr. Roger Knapman: As the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has insisted upon duplicating his Adjournment debate speech of 26 May, some of us must take the Beeching axe to our own remarks. 
It may interest hon. Members to know that, back at the time of privatisation, London, Midland and Scottish and London and North-Eastern Region were respectively the second and third biggest companies in the world. The Labour Minister of Transport at that time—1947—said:
Passengers who travel on our railways have not today the comfort, either in matters of refreshment or of travel. which they ought to have
He finished with a ringing appeal:
Give this Labour Government five years of power in … transport services and the people of this country will see more progress than would be made in 500 years of Tory rule".
Tell that to long-suffering commuters on Network SouthEast, or those trying to get their teeth through a British Rail sandwich.
If, like me, one cannot make a decent speech oneself, by far the next best thing is to hijack one that is 47 years old and resurrect it from that forgotten age. The person replying to that debate was no less than Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe. His speech is just as topical now as it was then. I feel that I must mention two or three points that he made, having spent some four hours in the Library.
Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe said:
I ask those who interrupt me to look at the father and mother of the Bill, the T.U.C. document, in which it will be found that these low costs are stressed"—
he was referring to the low costs, because of the short distances between manufacturing places and the ports—
but we shall not have them under a monopoly which will be cumbrous and top-heavy, whose structural defects are as manifest as its powers are unlimited.
He went on:
The right hon. Gentleman has given us one reason for this integration, with regard to railway services, and that was the difficulty of doing capital works on the railways.
That was just after the war.
He knows as everyone knows that the railway companies had their plans ready for renewals, replacements and new works, and to take his own example, he knows it was planned and that everything was prepared to rebuild Euston Station, which is one of the examples he chose in this matter."—[Official Report, 16 December 1946; Vol. 431, c. 1637–8.]
So the will for new works was there after the war—of that make no mistake.
Even more telling—I believe that the word "integration" will be much used in debates as we soon move towards railway privatisation—are the words of Sir Cyril Hurcombe, the Director-General of the Ministry of Transport, who was in charge of the railway system during the war:
detailed allocation of traffic has not been practicable, nor, indeed, has it been easy to find any fixed principles on which to allocate at all. It must be confessed that wartime allocation of traffic has not been based on principles or methods likely to be applicable to ordinary conditions, so there will be much talk of integration but I suspect rather fewer people who know what integration means".
I will not carry on after that short point, but in 1947 there were relatively few Conservative Members in this place—about the same miserable number as there are Opposition Members now. However, during that time we had the support of the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) talks of the Liberal Bench, but the Liberals followed us through the Lobby time after time in that debate.
My hon. Friend the Minister can look forward to a nice easy ride. if I can put it that way, because we can look forward to certain help from the "SaLaD" party. which I presume to be the Liberal party's successor, when privatisation comes about. I hope that that will be soon.

Mr. David Shaw: There have been many successful examples of privatisation under this Government. British Telecom is often labelled as one which has not been too successful, but any of us who tried to get telephones 12 or even four years ago knows that the service has been improving steadily. Under Labour, I found the delay excessive and unreasonable. Now, not only is there hardly any delay, but one has a choice of telephone. The consumer is at long last starting to rule the telephone industry and the introduction of Mercury will ensure that that continues.
The Government must not relax with British Rail privatisation. It would be very easy to say that it is too difficult, that it has been in the public sector too long and that it is an old industry. The Government should not go soft. They should face up to the fact that BR is an opportunity to provide the consumer with a better service.
BR's service has undoubtedly improved in some areas, but the current service is no more than adequate. Nothing really exciting exists in BR for passengers or for employees, who are denied the opportunity of profit-sharing and of share option schemes. Management is not paid as decent management would be, so one is tempted to say that it cannot be running a decent business and getting decent pay for it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How much does the hon. Gentleman get paid?

Mr. Shaw: Not as much as some BR managers.
This is not a decent business that provides a decent service. The businesses that depend on BR do not get the same reaction from the staff and management of BR as they would expect in their own businesses. BR has not been exciting for the taxpayer, who has been the investor for the past 40 years or so, as there has been no trace of a dividend.
Stations in my constituency are not tidy, carriages are out of date, catering facilities are hardly ever available and timekeeping does not accord with what BR tells us in its accounts. It is not very good, especially on Fridays. The only good news is my local village station, which has nice courteous staff and where newspapers are for sale. The station is also relatively well kept.
We are tempted to ask what can be done with private finance. I believe that it could offer new opportunities for BR and the travelling public. Much finance could be available if there were good investment returns for the private investor. Stations could be converted into retail shops, public houses or guest houses, and many of them could become tourist attractions.
As for the rolling stock, there are opportunities for business men's carriages where they can work as they travel. There could be office cubicles with telephones and fax and telex machines. There could be tourism carriages with glass tops in which people could tour around the country. There could be catering carriages with much better catering facilities.
Many property opportunities could be taken advantage of at the major termini. Hotels, offices, shops and business premises could be expanded on BR sites. Docklands and Canary wharf is the largest private sector development in the world at the moment, but it is small compared with the potential for King's Cross, which could be an £8 billion development. There are many opportunities for new investment in track. Even new lines could be contemplated if private sector finance and privatisation were introduced.
British Rail should be run to provide a good, efficient service for passengers together with a profit for the investors, and it should be a good place to work for the employees, who could do well from privatisation. My colleagues and I call on the Government to publish a Green Paper on privatisation and to introduce private finance as soon as possible.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on securing a place in the ballot and choosing this subject, and I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the Front Bench for the first time on transport.
British Rail's corporate plan for 1988 published last week is a thin documentm, certainly unlikely to pass a GCSE in transport and rarely addressing the real issues. It is vital that the railways are put under the spotlight. There are exciting projects—for example, the east-coast mainline electrification, the construction of the Stansted airport rail link, the electrification of the Portsmouth-Southampton line and the provision of international rail services which will come about through the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993.
Although we hear that British Rail is becoming more customer-orientated—Jimmy Savile used to proclaim that it was "getting there"—the facts speak substantially to the contrary. Can one imagine any other company with rationale advertising its failure by taking advertisements—full-page and London Underground ones—showing the black and red dots of their failure? I cannot imagine any other company doing that. Clearly the railways are operator-led rather than customer-orientated, although they moved from an £83 million loss to a £291 million surplus last year.
The time has come for the Government to ask British Rail for its denationalisation strategy. It is long overdue. It may propose privatising region by region, and on my recent visit to Scotland that was welcomed. It may privatise sector by sector, or, most probably, split the track and maintenance from the operators. I favour the latter. The former runs along CAA lines and the latter would be like customer-oriented companies.
What would denationalisation bring? First, it would bring employee participation, which would be beloved by Labour Members, if they were present, but I see many empty Benches. I look forward to British Rail Engineering Limited being awarded to a company or consortium which allows staff at all levels to participate. Even York's hard Left council paid for a private consultant's report last year which concluded that the best future for the engineering company was—surprise, surprise—in private hands. How right it was, and how silent the Socialist councillors have been since. It makes sense for a heavy engineering firm to

be able to take on all appropriate work at competitive prices that would include major coach and defence contracts, using skills which are rarely fully utilised.
Secondly, denationalisation would bring frequency of service. If anyone wishes to go to a theatre or cinema in London or to have a meal at a reasonable time, he will fail to get back to York that evening, because the last published time of departure is 10 pm. I could give examples for many other provincial cities.
Thirdly, at present it is impossible to buy any magazine or newspaper on any train in the United Kingdom. I cannot understand why that is, or why there is that stranglehold monopoly. No doubt the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has noticed that he cannot enjoy the pleasure of purchasingLabour Weekly on the train.
Furthermore, denationalisation would bring catering en route for the customer. Why is it that frequently no facilities are available for the first 20 minutes or last 30 minutes of a journey? Lunch stops at 12 noon on a train from the north when it reaches Newark. It is time for vending machines on every InterCity and provincial train. It is right that there should be a seat for every customer. Frequently, standard class ticket holders have no seat and British Rail has no answer for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre referred to the privatisation of railway stations. We need open stations. At present, staff at London termini such as King's Cross simply obstruct passengers and make the carrying of luggage extremely difficult by restricting space. They have even tried to stop me boarding the right train. There is no need for those staff to be there; they could be put to productive use. Similarly, we need to develop passenger services at stations. Why do we not have banking facilities at every station, and why do not all stations do what the Essex stations do and provide one with the opportunity to service one's car?
A visit to the Utrecht headquarters of Dutch Railways showed me the proper use of real estate. There, 250 to 280 retail points exist. The property board of British Rail may say, "We haven't got the space." The answer is to push the railway lines at Paddington and Waterloo further out, so as to put that real estate—the most valuable in Britain—to use.
One should not expect to find trolleys at these important destinations. If hon. Members went to King's Cross tonight they would find trolleys not on the platforms for use by passengers, but at the exit point, where no doubt there would be 200 or more. One will not find services advertised as one would at Heathrow or Gatwick. One will find no facilities whatever. Even the common rail ticket does not refer to any other service or product that is available.
The customer should come first, not the railways or the operator. I look forward to a commitment by the Government to put the user first and to ask British Rail, as a matter of urgency, not for completely inadequate corporate plans but for its solid denationalisation proposals.

Mr. Quentin Davies: It is no exaggeration to say that the railways in this country have been something of a disaster on wheels throughout this century. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for


Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), the only Opposition Member who has spoken, who implied that the problems went back to a time long before privatisation. Of course they do; they go back to the beginning of the century and are associated with three interlinked factors.
The first was the growth of monopolistic or oligopolistic practices and attitudes of mind on the part of the companies. The second was the extensive and intensive degree of trade unionisation from which the industry suffered from the beginning of the century. The third was creeping Government interference. Nationalisation was promoted as a solution to the problems of the railways, but it made all three aspects distinctly worse.
If I had had time after discovering that you had chosen this very timely subject for debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have done some research with a view to presenting to the House in terms of constant 1988 prices the sum of the operating deficits incurred by British Railways and British Rail since nationalisation and the new investment poured in from public funds. Presented in constant 1988 prices, those figures would have been very revealing. I am sorry that I cannot present those figures tonight, although I fear that I can think of few more depressing avenues of industrial research.
This unfortunate state of affairs is the result of three factors that were completely predictable. A monopoly will generate monopoly costs; they always do. Those costs are insidious, though incalculable, and they would not exist if there was competitive pressure on the firm. At the same time, a monopoly will not seize the opportunities that a competitive firm would seize, so incremental revenues that might have been generated will not be generated.
The second problem is that a monopoly will develop a very producer-oriented culture. We see that in the terrible structure of restrictive practices, closed shops and compulsory overmanning from which British Rail has always suffered. We also know it anecdotally every time we take the train. Whenever I go to Lincolnshire, I have to queue for about 10 minutes to buy a ticket, and I have to queue to get on to the platform. Ours is the only railway system in the world that makes one queue to get on to the platform. If one wants to get a sandwich or a drink, one has to queue at the bar, which is not normally opened until 10 minutes or so after the train has left the station or when the staff happen to feel like it. That is real producer orientation for you.
The next problem with a nationalised monopoly is that it will always suffer from insidious political interference such as artificial limits being imposed on its borrowing powers.
Nationalisation has made the railways hopelessly unattractive economically. It is impossible to produce a prospectus for major parts of the railway system and have any hope of floating them off. On the other hand, this can be a vicious circle. Nationalisation having destroyed the railways as an attractive investment proposition, we may never be able to get out of nationalisation so as to make the activity prosperous, attractive and viable again. The only way to square the circle is to look for niches which enable us to carve into that monopoly and introduce elements of privatisation.
That is why I welcome the ideas we have heard tonight—for example to privatise small regional railways or to allow private companies to run trains on publicly owned track. We must go forward in the interests of the customers of the railways and the economy as a whole, and not least

in the interests of the poor taxpayer who has borne this burden over the years. We must seize every opportunity to reverse the fatal tendency towards monopoly from which the railway system has suffered through the decades of this century.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I love trains and, like all hon. Members, I want to see the railways improved. I hope that before the Minister achieves that objective by privatising the whole system, he will preserve a few samples of British Rail, such as the plastic cup that bends in the middle and spills boiling hot liquid all over one, the curly sandwich, the dirty old carriage complete with split seat on which one would prefer not to put one's clean clothes, and the timetable.
Sometimes trains run to time, but often on the lines into and out of my constituency they run up to an hour and a half late. My secretary goes home every evening on the train to Southend. On leaving my office at 5.30—if she is lucky—she makes her way to Fenchurch Street station, from where she arrives at her home in Southend sometimes as late as 9 o'clock, a journey which technically should take an hour.
Delays occur because the driver will not go the whole distance, as his scheduled time is up, or he started late, or somebody was not available to operate the signals, or perhaps for no reason at all. So the train is shunted into a siding and after perhaps an hour the passengers are offered a coach ride to complete their journey. The result is that my secretary and her husband do not have their dinner until late.
What I have described is the reality for many commuters. There are four major railway stations in my constituency and almost every household is affected because they have in their families commuters working in London. They are lucky to get to work on time and even luckier to arrive home at a reasonable hour. My description of travelling on these lines is a typical occurrence for commuters who use Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street stations.
What is more, the rolling stock used on those lines is dreadful old stuff. Whenever I travel in these trains, I feel I need a wash and brush-up on arriving at the terminal, so dusty and dirty are the seats and carriage walls.
This debate is about how we might use private investment to improve the railway system, and already we could allow private operators to run services over BR lines. We could thereby slot in many more trains. Ample people exist to do this. Reference has been made to the Orient express operation. Those concerned with that operate on other lines, too. There are other companies, including Tiphook plc and Foster Yeoman plc, which are able and willing to do this work.
The present dirty old carriages could be improved. Allied Lyons plc recently paid about half the cost of refurbishing coaches on the Waterloo-City line in return for having the company's logo on the outside of the coaches, as is done with the red buses. There is no reason why that type of action should not be taken immediately, even before we get new rolling stock.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that there is a surplus of drivers, so there is no reason for trains to stop in the middle of nowhere because there is no driver. Far more are trained than we need, and young qualified drivers


often wait years for promotion, which is on the basis of age. Sometimes they have to wait until they are 50 and have only 15 years left. If some of them became private contract drivers with licences, they could come in and take over trains when other drivers reach the end of their schedule. We could also have self-employed porters. In America they do a deal with the passenger on the cost of carrying the luggage and are happy to work on a self-employed basis. Computer technology could do much to improve timetabling.
The platform at Billericay has holes so big that people trip and have serious accidents. We could privatise the maintenance of stations as well as the track. And while we are waiting around for the trains, why should we not have shopping facilities? Every train station could be a mini-concourse of the kind found at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, where people can buy all kinds of bits and pieces. There are so many ways in which the private sector could inject capital straight away and improve the lot of those who travel on those lines.
Finally, I wish to put in a little word for myself. I often travel by rail. As I have said, I enjoy it. I often travel first class, especially if the person inviting me is prepared to pay for the ticket. First-class travel is expensive. It can cost more to visit Hazel Grove than Paris or Barcelona if one pays the full fare of £85, and what does one get for it? There is no reclining seat, no decent selection of food, no in-service magazines, newspapers, muzak or video, or any of the other services provided by British Airways for the same price. I hope that, without the need for primary legislation, my hon. Friend the Minister will think of my poor commuters going up and down those two lines and do what he can straight away to bring in private enterprise and make their lives happier.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am glad that the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) has raised the subject of rail privatisation, as it needs to be properly debated. The Government have been far too reticent about their plans. On Tuesday, the Secretary of State chided the Labour party for not having a transport policy. As he said that he had read every word of our policy review, I give the right hon. Gentleman 100 per cent. for diligence but zero for comprehension as he clearly did not understand a word of what he read. Our policy, which I believe is well supported by most people, is that the railways, like all forms of transport and all service industries, exist to provide for the customer and the user, whether individual or corporate and whether in terms of the economy, regional development or whatever. The main purpose is to provide a service.
The problem is that we are getting privatisation by stealth, which is distorting the whole transport market. As soon as there is the slightest possibility of money being made, private capital is brought in to siphon off the gravy. As a result, morale within British Rail is debilitated. How can one expect initiative from British Rail when it is told that it will be left with the dross and that the only way to survive is to sell off anything that is any good, and constantly retrench?
Comparisons have been made with British Airways and the British Airports Authority. The only excuse for

privatisation of the BAA was that it would be able to go out and build hotels, car parks and shops. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who has such an interest in the Settle-Carlisle line, said that the problem was that British Rail was prevented from doing certain things. That is what needs to be cured. It is not a matter of privatisation but of allowing British Rail to use its initiative and expand. It was forced to sell off its hotels, but it ought to be able to go back into that sector and provide a service if it wishes. In our view, this is the way forward.
The paucity of the Government's policy is amply illustrated by their decision for the Settle-Carlisle line. Everyone knows and accepts that the line should be kept open. Everyone says so. The Secretary of State for Transport accepts that it should be kept open. Even the Secretary of State for the Environment accepts that it should be kept open. The only trouble is that the Cabinet decided that the Secretary of State for Transport should lose, that the Secretary of State for the Environment should be the winner, and that there should be a private enterprise solution.
The so-called dowry—the subsidy for the private section solution—is to be provided by the public sector. I have seen the letter of the Secretary of State for the Environment in which he states that the Government should provide the money to keep the line open, but adds that the last thing that they should so is make it available to British Rail. That is dogma gone mad. The sooner that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State realise that, the better. I hope that they will fight for British Rail and for the passenger.
The deregulation of bus services and the privatization of the National Bus Company, for example, brought a poorer service for those who are on the periphery. We know—[Interruption.] I can understand that at this time of night Conservative Members are unwilling to face reality. The trouble is that they take their dogma and their blinkers through the daylight as well. The problem is that we are dealing——

Mr. Cryer: Conservative Members do not want to know.

Mr. Hughes: I ask my hon. Friend not to heckle. That goes for Conservative Members as well. I am trying to finish my speech.
Instead of endeavouring to provide a service for the public and the nation, the Government are concerned about service for the moneylender. That is the only thing that matters to them. It is that attitude that is destroying the transport system. The Channel tunnel and the concept of spreading benefits throughout the country and not only to Kent, which for some reason does not want it, or to London, where there are problems, will fail because the Government will not accept that the railways are part of the transport system. They will not give priority to service and they will not make available the necessary investment. They will not allow British Rail to use initiative. For all these reasons, British Rail is failing. The new Minister of State can make his mark in the Department if he casts aside all the dogma and past practice and considers seriously developing the railways.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portilio): The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for his diligence in reading the Labour party's policy on these matters. In the 72 hours that I have held my present office it has not been my highest priority to mug up on Labour party policy. I have not been encouraged to do so by the statement that the market has been distorted by private capital. That is such an extraordinary statement that I am not tempted to read on.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on initiating the debate. Two things have become evident to me. First, it is impossible to ignore the spontaneous eruption of opinion on the Government Benches in favour of further privatisation. The full Benches behind me, even in the middle of the night, testify to how strongly that opinion is felt. Secondly, it will be impossible for me to ignore the Settle-Carlisle railway, which will be a major concern of mine in the months to come.
I must disappoint my hon. Friends by saying that I have no major announcement to make, such as the preparation of a Green Paper. That will be a disappointment to my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for York (Mr. Gregory), as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who showed us tonight her clean clothes and her entrepreneurial inventiveness. I congratulate her on that.
We listened to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who said that the railways were short of finance because of Government policy. No investment proposal since 1983 has been rejected by the Government. If there were a shortage of finance because of Government constraints, surely that would be an argument for privatisation. I found the hon. Gentleman's argument puzzling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) quoted a speech that was 41 years old. I have to say that it had a fresher feel to it than the speech by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was very concerned about the Settle-Carlisle railway, as indeed was the hon. Member for Bradford, South. I recognise the serious concerns about that, and I look forward to applying my mind to the problems that confront us.
I shall take into account some of the points that my hon. Friend has made, and when I meet the local authorities, as I shall before long, I shall mention what he has said. I shall consider carefully his comments about the lack of available information. I am also happy to concede to him that as the timetable change in any case occurs in mid-May 1989, it seems reasonable that if closure is decided on it should not occur until then. That extends the period in which we can seek a private sector solution, although in my view it is still right for the new evidence on hardship to come forward under the timetable so that we can reach final decisions with a fair degree of urgency.
I very much agreed with the general defence of privatisation policies produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre. Successive Governments have attempted to grapple with the poor performance of nationalised industries through increasingly stringent control frameworks. The cumulative effect has been to

create a set of external stimuli which, in the absence of real competitive forces, try to provide pressure similar to that normally provided by market mechanisms. The intention behind the Government's privatisation and competition policy is to replace the surrogate market with the real market.
Privatisation is intended to benefit customers, employees and the economy as a whole. The customers benefit from greater efficiency, which then results in lower prices, wider choice and better service. For employees, privatisation means working in a company with clear objectives, the means to achieve them and rewards for success. The economy benefits through higher returns on capital in the privatised industries, which can no longer pre-empt resources from elsewhere in the economy but must compete for funds in the open market.
Let me say in parenthesis that no better defence of the Government's privatisation programme has ever been made than that made by my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Social Security, back in 1983. It still remains a remarkable statement about our objectives.
I am proud to join the Department of Transport, which has a most impressive privatisation record. Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) that there are many examples of the vicious circle being broken in the past. The Department has privatised the National Freight Consortium, Associated British Ports, British Airways and the British Airports Authority, and has a major privatisation programme for the subsidiaries of the National Bus Company. That leaves three industries in the Department of Transport—the Civil Aviation Authority, which I believe is in a category of its own, London Regional Transport, and British Rail.
I stress that we have no plans to privatise British Rail at present, and we are constantly reviewing our long-term options. None is ruled out, as has been made clear successively by my right hon. Friend and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), to whom such a generous tribute has been paid not only tonight but during our debate the other day.
Many issues need further study. We need to examine regulation in monopolies and arrangements for subsidy of loss-making services. In the meantime, as so many of my hon. Friends have said, the priority is to improve British Rail's service to the customer and to increase efficiency. Good progress is being made, with dependence on grant being reduced, productivity increased and substantial investment being made to improve the quality of service.
The objectives set out and agreed between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—now Secretary of State for Social Security—and the British Railways Board call for a series of vigorous measures to broaden the participation of the private sector in providing services to the railway, and for British Rail to establish specific programmes to that end. Private sector involvement has been increasing over the past few years, and I am very pleased with that. It is now quite extensive, with British Rail spending some £1·3 billion annually with private companies, out of a total expenditure of £3·3 billion.
Private caterers compete with Travellers Fare at eight major stations and private companies operate alone at 90 other stations. The private sector also provides prepared food for on-train catering and about 20 private on-train


trolley services are now operating. Total private sector involvement in property development is running at about £1 billion.
My hon. Friends will be familiar with earlier sell-offs, which include Sealink, British Transport Hotels, Hovercraft, British Transport Advertising and Doncaster wagon works. That policy will continue, and the House will be aware that British Rail will be issuing a BREL information package shortly to a number of prospective purchasers. Today, the executive directors of BREL made an announcement about their plans for a management and employee buy-out, in which they would be supported by ASEA Brown-Boveri and Trafalgar House. Naturally we welcome all serious expressions of interest in bidding for BREL, although it is too soon to say who the successful purchaser will be. Our approval will be needed for the eventual sale and we shall take all relevant factors into account.
With our agreement, BR is preparing to invite offers for Travellers Fare. That will give the new owners greater freedom to develop the business and should be good for the customer and good for the railway. I thought that there was a certain obsessiveness with food and catering in some of my hon. Friends' remarks. Therefore, I know that they will be interested in that information. British Rail will be ready to invite bids in September and it hopes to complete the sale before the end of this financial year.
The reason why we are able to discuss BR privatisation is that it has made progress under firm Government guidelines and with taxpayer investment. Two other things, however, were necessary—first, the determination of Ministers since 1979 to move industries into the private sector and to stimulate competition; and, secondly, the presence of opinion formers who created the climate in which such enlightened changes could be made. Such opinion formers have been with us tonight on the Benches behind me. I congratulate all my hon. Friends who have made their voices loudly heard.

Orders of the Day — Overseas Aid and Development

Mr. Tom Clarke: Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, I welcome the presence of the Minister for Overseas Development and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). It is important to have this debate, especially in the light of some of the replies that the Minister has given my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles and other hon. Members recently.
It is appropriate to discuss, in as much detail as time will allow, what the figures, statistics and all the rest that the Minister has offered mean in terms of the problems of poverty in the Third world and the Government's response to them.
I do not know how many letters the Minister has received since he took over the Department, but I suspect that the one that will be foremost in his mind will be the one that began, "Dear Chris". It was an open letter published in theSunday Telegraph on the Sunday after the Minister's appointment, and it was from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised if I remind him that, in that open letter, his right hon. Friend had some interesting things to say. In the quietness of the hour we can reflect on what the right hon. Gentleman said and compare it with the Minister's record in office. His right hon. Friend then advised:
Nor will you be plagued with adjournment debates
Therefore, it is right that we should be having this one.
His right hon. Friend also said:
The Guardian over-stated it when they said that you seem 'to have been sadly despatched to the saltmines of overseas aid'.
In one of the most acute exercises in open government, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I've no doubt Geoffrey will fight the battle well. I only hope that the Prime Minister, having put you there, will be sympathetic. She has many qualities, but I can't say that over-enthusiasm for the aid programme is one of them.
He continued:
I couldn't help thinking, as we had our amiable farewell chat last Wednesday, that it was about the first time that I had ever had a conversation with her about what Pd been up to at the ODA.
The other day, the Minister assured the House that he had had a person-to-person confrontation with the Prime Minister. Perhaps tonight we shall hear how much she said, how much he said and whether the discussion influenced Government policy.
The most telling sentence in that letter, to which I want to address myself tonight, stated:
We simply don't have a large enough programme by international standards.
I put it to the Minister, who is highly regarded in all parts of the House—I hope I do not damage his prospects by saying that—that we have seen no improvement in that regard since he took over this crucial responsibility.
The debate is vital and absolutely necessary because of the Government's quite appalling record on overseas aid. We have a moral responsibility to aid less developed countries. As a country, we benefit from that aid through world growth and economic interdependence. That was what the Brandt report was about. The House will not forget that one of the biggest lobbies ever at the Palace of Westminster was when more than 10,000 people urged


upon the House the necessity to accept the principles of the Brandt report. One gets the impression that the Government hardly know that it exists.
The United Nations target figure, the internationally agreed target, is that developed countries should aim to contribute 0·7 per cent. of their GNP to less developed countries as official development assistance. In all candour, the Government's approach is an absolute disgrace and I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's position.
The United Nations set a target not of real percentage increase, but of a fixed proportion of GNP, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles has consistently reminded the Minister. The principle is that, as western economies and western incomes grow, simultaneously, so will our commitment to development and overseas aid. The GNP of the United Kingdom increased by 21 per cent. last year, but that was hardly reflected in our aid budget; hence, our proportion fell. Countries that accept the United Nations target figure of 0·7 per cent.—indeed, countries that accept the principle of paying a fixed proportion of GNP—are saying that we should tie the health of the Third world to our wealth.
The target figure of 0·7 per cent. is, to some extent, our income tax due to the Third world. A strange parallel can be drawn between the Government's approach to aid and United Kingdom taxation. They have made it easier for richer people to feel that they have no responsibility to the poor by cutting the proportion of individual incomes used to fund services. Similarly, we, as a rich nation, have cut the proportion of our national income, our GNP, used to fund world development.
The lack of logic in the Government's approach can be seen by using a tax analogy. If a person's income increases, we expect him to pay a fixed proportion in tax. We do not tell him to pay slightly more tax than last year to keep pace with inflation. We do not write to the tax inspector to say that our income increased by 21 per cent. last year so we will pay 5 per cent. more in tax. That is nonsense. If we accept that domestically, why should we take this approach to the Third world? Just as income tax is the money that members of the community pay to meet their responsibilities to the community, overseas aid is the money that members of the international community pay to meet their responsibilities to it. So the Government's record is a scandal and their excuses, which we hear every third week on Mondays, for 10 minutes in the House, are tawdry.
Let us hear no more of real terms increases; let us hear when we shall increase the proportion of our GNP that goes to the Third world. That proportion has fallen by 45 per cent. since 1979. On 20 June, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles asked:
as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeatedly stand at the Dispatch Box and say how well off the country is, could we not expect more of that wealth to go to the Third world? Instead, the amount is declining at a time when the countries that we visited are in desperate need." —[Official Report, 20 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 830.]
Our record as a member of the international community is appalling. That is nowhere more evident than in the United Nations. In a 1987 league table of OECD contributors to UNICEF, the United Nations children's fund, the United Kingdom came second from bottom. Our per capita contribution of 34 cents compared with Sweden's $9·41. So to say that net aid is growing in real terms is not to give the whole picture. Small increases

now are still not making up for the real-terms losses the Government have caused over the past eight years. And the Government's published expenditure plans to 1991 still leave real net aid from the United Kingdom 12 per cent. below that of 1979. That is the first answer to the Government's pathetic excuses.
The second, more important reason why the Government's opinions do not ring true is that real-terms increases do not really matter. They are much less significant than measurements of the proportion of GNP, given that in 1979 this country was well on the way to reaching the 0·7 per cent. target. The figure then was an internationally respectable 0·51 percent. of GNP. Much of the credit for that is due to Judith Hart, who did so much at the Department when it still meant something in terms of Government policy——

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): Tell that to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

Mr. Clarke: If my right hon. Friend were here he would have every reason to be proud of his record in this area —much more so than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Minister should tell that to his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Patten: There is one important difference between the former Chancellor and my right hon. Friend, the present one. My right hon. Friend can go to the IMF and help it to lend money to other countries. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East went to it to borrow money.

Mr. Clarke: I look forward to an economic debate. I would be stretching the point, as the Minister tried to, if I were to argue about borrowing. I have many constituents who have been forced to borrow and borrow by this Government, so the Chancellor is not in a position to lecture Labour Members.
I remind the Minister that overseas development is his responsibility. Under his stewardship, the amount of aid given has fallen and continues to do so. The 1987 figures show that the proportion of the United Kingdom's GNP given to aid is only 0·28 per cent. The proportion of GNP given has fallen by 45 per cent. Of the 17 members of the OECD's development assistance committee, that fall is by far the largest. Those countries have Chancellors, or their equivalents, who would not dream of trying to justify the unjustifiable to their Parliaments. I hope that the Minister will not attempt to do so.
That fall should be contrasted with a 300 per cent. increase in the proportion of GNP by Italy, a 138 per cent. increase by Finland and a 43 per cent. increase by Sweden. Other increases have been given by countries such as Denmark, Norway, Japan, Holland and even the United States of America. No wonder the Minister attempted to distract us by trying to introduce issues that are not relevent to his brief.
The United Kingdom is now 14th out of the 17 countries in the OECD league table. In 1979, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and Judith Hart shared responsibility for these matters, we were seventh and set to climb higher. Under this Government, who have a wretched record, we always look as though we will drop lower in the table.
In a reply to a written question asked by me, the Minister stated that the Government had set no target for reaching the 0·7 per cent. figure. He said that it
depends on developments in the economy and other claims on resources."—[Official Report, 27 April 1988; Vol. 132 c. 168.]
Since the Government's record has been not one of gradually moving to the 0·7 per cent. but one of decline, perhaps the Minister will say when the United Kingdom will reach 0·2,0·1 or even 0 per cent. People used to believe that 0·4 or 0·3 per cent. were magic barriers below which the United Kingdom would never fall. The Government have proved that such naive optimism was quite unfounded.
The Government's stock excuse is that our aid budget is growing in real terms. That is an interesting defence, and no doubt we will hear it again tonight.

Mr. Chris Patten: The hon. Gentleman said that he thought it more important to concentrate on increasing the proportion of GNP given to aid than increasing the aid programme in real terms. I cannot believe that he thinks that. Would he like to reconsider his remarks and say whether he believes that what matters above all is the proportion of GNP and that having a sufficiently strong economy to increase aid in real terms is not of any consequence whatever?

Mr. Clarke: Constant prices are important, which is why the Minister seldom, if ever, refers to them. If the Government have changed their minds about the proportion of GNP given and the United Nations' target, they have a responsibility to tell us. They have not yet done so, but the debate will give them the opportunity.lb/>
A modest increase in real terms this year looks generous on paper, but we should remember that in constant 1986–87 prices United Kingdom net aid fell from £1,395 million in 1978–79 to £1,198 million in 1987–88. That is a decrease in real terms—in cash terms—of about 14 per cent. in the contributions made before the Government took office. How the Minister can justify any of those figures is beyond me. The debate will give him an opportunity to do so.
The United Kingdom's record is just as bad in other United Nations agencies. We followed the United States of America and pulled out of UNESCO, cutting ourselves adrift from the process of reform currently transforming that organisation. We stand 24th in a table of 24 OECD members in contributions to UNESCO. We are joint bottom with the United States. We are 16th out of 24 in per capita contributions to the World Health Organisation. Our pathetic and miserable 21 cents per head per year is half that of Switzerland, which is in first place. Presumably the Minister is proud of that record. I notice that he is not so keen to intervene on that point, although I am happy to give way.

Mr. Chris Patten: Would the hon. Gentleman care to give us the figures for where we stand in volume terms in our contributions to the WHO? I am sure that he has the figures and is knowledgeable on that point.

Mr. Clarke: I shall give the Minister figures in the same way as he gave me figures. There were times when he was somewhat coy in response to the open questions he has put to me and which I have put to him.
We are 17th out of 24 in per capita contributions to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and we contribute only 3 per cent. of the per capita figure given by Denmark, which is again in first place. I wonder whether that figure pleases the Minister and whether he regards that as progress.
If we are to continue to follow every move of United States foreign policy like timid and obedient poodles, we should also bear in mind that in league tables for the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, UNESCO and UNICEF, in no case does the United States contribute more. Perhaps the Government are racing the United States to the bottom of the heap.
The Government's response to aid is selective in the extreme. In the case of Nicaragua, in 1986 we gave less than $5,000 in bilateral aid for technical co-operation, while Italy gave over $7 million. In 1987 we could still find only £47,000 for technical co-operation, co-financed with British voluntary groups. That is a pittance when compared to the scale of suffering caused by the Contra terrorist war paid for by the United States. Our contribution to Nicaragua, in contrast to our contribution to Costa Rica and even Honduras, is far from generous. We are giving less than we gave to the Somoza regime, which left its people impoverished. The Government's attitude to poverty and health care in Nicaragua is somewhat inconsistent with their attitude elsewhere.
The Minister should be aware—it is unusual for a Minister to ask me questions on statistics, but I am always willing to help when I can—that we are second from bottom of the league table in our OECD contributions to Nicaragua. That is what I was told in his parliamentary answer to me.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of Nicaragua, is he aware that the Government have made no discernible move to assist Nicaragua in the difficulties it faces in borrowing money on the international money markets because it is given such a low credit rating? Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Government have taken part in giving it that low credit rating, despite its excellent record in the repayment of debt?

Mr. Clarke: Since the Minister became excited about borrowing a few moments ago, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may respond to that important point.
On Kampuchea, I asked the Minister a few days ago whether he planned to organise an international relief effort. He said that the Government were considering what response, if any, they will be making to the Food and Agriculture Organisation's appeal for food aid for Kampuchea. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to let us know whether the Government will respond to the FAO appeal; how much food they will give; how much our contribution will be in comparison to those of our OECD colleagues and friends, and whether the Government will stop food aid going to representatives of the discredited Khmer Rouge.
On Mozambique, I am sure that the House will accept that that area currently experiences dire poverty. It has one of the highest levels of infant mortality in the world—123 per thousand in 1985. Much of that relates specifically to the policy of destabilisation by South Africa which has contributed to civil war. Therefore, as the Minister speaks


on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I must ask him what steps the Government are taking to prevent South Africa's destabilisation of the Mozambique Government.
I turn briefly to Europe and its role in development. Lorenzo Natali, the European Community's Development Commissioner, has made proposals to allow European Community involvement in microeconomic planning in the African, Caribbean and Pacific states. Those proposals are the basis for the EEC negotiations on the 4th Lomé convention, to cover the period after 1990. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's views on Europe's role in development planning and what opinion, if any, the Government have on Mr. Natali's detailed proposals. Among other things, those proposals would allow more co-ordination between the European development fund, the World Bank and the IMF on the ACP adjustment.
It would be impossible to take part in an important debate of this kind without referring, as I am sure hon. Members and especially my hon. Friends will wish to do, to famine in Africa. The House has had the benefit of what I feel was an excellent report by the Select Committee called "Famine in the Horn of Africa". Difficult though the Minister has made it for me to do so, I should like to say that the Government's response was constructive. What they said should be welcomed. The report rightly identifies one of the major causes of famine as not only the drought but civil war and conflict.
We are especially worried about Eritrea and Tigré. Therefore, we would welcome any urgent action that the Government feel free to take to find a solution to a problem which the House will accept is extremely difficult. However, if the Government decide to increase our contribution to Ethiopia, Chad, Sudan and sub-Saharan Africa, they would have outstanding support. The Minister must know that 76 per cent. of people in an opinion poll said that we should give the same or more, as against 18 per cent. who said that we should give less.
People are concerned that when funding is made available, whether on a voluntary basis or by Government, we should concentrate on measures to deal with drought, on irrigation and on agriculture, and not always on prestigious projects such as dams, airports and power stations. People accept that industrial development and agriculture are extremely important, which is why they take great exception to some of the food surpluses in the EEC and the failure to distribute adequately to those in need. People accept that the quality of aid is important. Therefore, we ask how much of our aid to Africa is going to agriculture, health care, industrial development and social needs. We urge the need for monitoring in those respects.
The absence of the political will to deal with the structural causes of poverty by Governments of North and South is all to obvious. The number of hungry people has roughly doubled over the past 12 years. The House must face the reality that 500 million people—one eighth of humanity—are suffering from chronic malnutrition tonight.
There is also the population problem.

Mr. Corbyn: While one welcomes aid that gets through to help the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world, does my hon. Friend share my concern that some policies, particularly those adopted by the World Bank in its advice to poor countries in receipt of loans it organises,

force on those countries economic models that often involve cuts in public expenditure which make the living conditions of people dependent on public services, health, education or housing worse because those countries are pursuing some economic Valhalla similar to that pursued by the present Government? Does he believe that the Government should consider their role in multinational agencies such as the World Bank as well as my hon. Friend's obvious and quite correct concern about the lack of spending on overseas aid in general?

Mr. Clarke: Again my hon. Friend makes a very solid point. I hope that he will be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will try to provide that opportunity by drawing my remarks to a close.
There is clearly great concern about the debt crisis, interest rates and commodity prices. Those problems are very important for developing countries that are struggling to assert themselves and release their peoples from poverty. That is the challenge to the House, to the Minister and to the Government's international policy. Developing countries have to face that challenge daily.
I believe that the great mass of the British people in every part of the United Kingdom feel that we could and should be making a tangible contribution to the solution of those problems. However, they bitterly regret the fact that, at a time when overseas aid is declining to very low levels, we still find opportunities to export arms and military equipment. Perhaps we should take a sober look at precisely what we are doing. Those priorities and the policies that the Government have pursued so far do not reflect the approach of the British people, which is not only generous, but takes into account the potential for development by the peoples of developing countries. If the Government ignore that potential, the needs of others and world poverty, they do so at their peril.

Miss Joan Lestor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on getting this item on to the political agenda tonight. As he said, this subject does not command a great deal of time in the House. We have little time for it at Question Time and few opportunities to make speeches on it. I am indebted to my hon. Friend for the detail in his speech and for his dedication to the subject over the 12 months that I have been involved in it as Labour Front-Bench spokesperson.
I think that the Minister and I share a deep concern for the problems of two countries that we have visited recently, namely, Mozambique and Ethiopia. Within the limits set on him by the Budget, the Minister has done much to increase the amount of assistance and aid to the very sad and war-torn country of Mozambique, which is being destabilised and is suffering as a result of South African aggression. I believe that he has tried, within the limits, to meet some of the needs and requests that have been made.
We are left with the situation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West referred. When the target was set by the United Nations at 0·7 per cent. of GNP, it was accepted and agreed that the industrialised countries would move towards that target. Our share will decrease and whether aid goes up in real terms will be irrelevant, because the gap between the rich and poor nations will become wider. We become richer, but we do not share our riches with the developing world.
The United Nations picked a percentage of GNP— which happened to be 0·7 per cent.—to meet that real difficulty. As my hon. Friend said, when the Labour party left office in 1979 we had reached a figure of 0·52 per cent. of GNP. Now, as the Minister said, as a proportion of GNP the budget is 0·28 per cent. He may say that during the past year or two in real terms there has been some increase here or there, but that is not true in all cases—and we are slipping away from the target. It is legitimate to ask the Minister whether the Government are still aiming at that target. If they are, why is it that we are slipping so much behind that target, when the Government are constantly telling us that we are improving our economic position every day and that the country is better off now than it has been for many years?
The gross public expenditure on aid is down from 1·2 per cent. to 0·90 per cent. That figure shows that, although the Minister may talk about the figures in real terms, we are giving a smaller part of a larger cake. If GNP is increasing, as we are told it is, we are giving less to the developing world.
We can take as an example the bilateral aid given to the member states of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference. Gross bilateral aid to those countries has fallen to 64 per cent. of its 1979 level in real terms. We are now giving much more in bilateral aid in real terms to Mozambique. I have gladly acknowledged that. However, in real terms, aid to the other countries involved with the Development Co-ordination Conference, such as Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia, is decreasing, and their needs are great, too.
When the front-line states were formed as a result of the military, economic and social destabilisation by the racist regime of South Africa, it was acknowledged that, although many of those countries were, or could be, rich in some natural resources, and perhaps under normal circumstances would be able to develop, the circumstances prevailing were not normal. In addition to the problems of economic debt and the national hazards of drought and floods, the military war of South Africa has taken its toll, especially against Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Angola, and the economies of all the front-line states have suffered from South Africa's policies of apartheid and destabilisation. I know that the Minister, when he was in Mozambique recently, saw examples of that, and we have already exchanged views on this across the Chamber, so I shall not repeat them.
Women and children in front-line states have been the innocent victims of this aggression. In 1986 UNICEF estimated that 140,000 children under five years of age were killed as a result of the war in Angola and Mozambique. That leaves out of account the hundreds of children who have died as a result of famine, drought and other causes. Because of the dislocation of population in the region, 500,000 people are now threatened with starvation, and 8·5 million have lost their homes.
South Africa continues to block food and emergency relief supplies and, as a result, some 200,000 people died between 1983 and 1985. Women and children are particularly vulnerable and daily suffer the most horrendous atrocities committed by MNR bandits and South African forces. It is hard to believe what is

happening until one listens to the people saying what has happened to them and sees the villages that have been destroyed and the children who have been mutilated.
The Minister has done a great deal to assist Mozambique within the confines of his budget, but the fact remains that unless the Government are prepared to take on South Africa and the sanctions and investment issue, we are simply bandaging the results of South African aggression.
The result of the wars and the migration of male labour to the South African mines is that many women have been left to maintain essential services. They face additional problems for, despite the rains in Mozambique, there has been a shortage of labour. There have been other complications, as South Africa has suddenly decided that it will employ fewer Mozambicans in the mines, thus again destabilising an economy that has relied heavily on people in some areas being employed in the mines. With the destruction left by the bandits, the result is horrific.
When the South African Development Co-ordination Conference was formed in 1980, it was a positive attempt by front-line states, including Lesotho, Malawi and Swaziland, to break their dependence on South Africa and to promote and plan the economic development of the region. That is why I find it so distressing that those countries are suffering a decline in real terms in the aid available to them. Their needs and suffering are no less than those of Mozambique.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West has said much of what I intended to say, and I am grateful to him for quoting answers to some of the questions that I have asked and some of my comments. I shall not delay the House by repeating what he said. Of course I am pleased that the Government have tried to deal with some of the debt problem by continuing the Labour Government's policy of converting loans into grants. I was pleased when, a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister finally acknowledged from the Dispatch Box that that was a Labour Government initiative implemented by Judith Hart.
The debt crisis hits at the standard of living of a large number of people throughout the world. UNICEF reckons that income per head fell by 9 per cent. in Latin America in the five years between 1980 and 1985 in 17 out of the 23 countries there. There is rising malnutrition in Chile, Uruguay and Brazil. There are problems with the EECs common agricultural policy for sugar from the Caribbean, and the over-production of beef in Europe is having an effect on the Botswana economy.
I know that the Minister will talk about the increased money that he has given certain countries during the past few months, but when Italy can increase its aid budget by 300 per cent. as a proportion of gross national product, whereas ours has declined by 45 per cent. as a proportion of GNP, there is something sadly wrong. The Government cannot have it both ways.
In 1983 the Prime Minister answered a world development movement questionnaire that was sent to parliamentary candidates. I remember filling it in, and I am sure that others do. The questionnaire asked many questions but, when asked whether the Government would move towards the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP given in aid, the Prime Minister told one of her constituents in her own fair hand:
We will move towards the UN Target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP when economic circumstances permit.


If the country is doing as well as we are told it is, why do economic circumstances not permit us to increase our aid budget as a proportion of GNP?

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss this matter which has been so thoughtfully provided by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on a Friday morning just before the holidays. I am only sorry that the Opposition do not choose to use one of their Supply days for an aid debate because then we could have an even fuller House to listen to our discussions. I shall not allow myself, whatever the hour of the morning, to become waspish and think, let alone speak, the suggestion that perhaps the Opposition might have as much difficulty getting their Members to attend such a debate as they have on other issues. I would not for a moment wish to say anything like that from the Dispatch Box. This is a welcome opportunity to talk about aid.
Whatever arguments there may be about the size of our aid programme—and I shall come to that with relish— there can be no argument about its quality. Certainly there is none outside Britain or in some of the multilateral institutions to which the hon. Gentleman referred and to which we make substantial cash contributions year after year. I shall be pleased to let the hon. Gentleman know about them at some time because plainly he is not as well acquainted with them as one might like. Our aid programme is widely recognised internationally for its quality and effectiveness.
Our aid is concentrated on the poorest countries. That is more the case than with Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development donors generally. In 1987, 81 per cent. of our bilateral aid went to countries with an income per head of less than $800—that is, International Development Association eligible countries. The major recipients include India and Bangladesh in Asia and Ghana, Kenya and Tanzania in Africa. The Commonwealth continues to provide an extremely important dimension to our overall aid programme.
The grant element of British aid in 1987 was 99—8 per cent. All our aid to the poorest countries is provided in the form of grants. Britain has led the way in forgiving past aid loans. In recent years we have played a leading role internationally in helping to develop new policies towards and solutions to the problems facing developing countries. Our views have carried weight because of our success in managing our economy. It is inconceivable—this is a point I raised in an intervention earlier—that we should be listened to in the same way if the International Monetary Fund were having to manage the British economy again. Our views have also carried weight because we are recognised as a serious donor, willing to reshape our programmes to meet new circumstances and to find additional resources for key initiatives, such as the debt initiative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the IMF's structural adjustment facility. We have been, and will continue to be, a firm supporter of structural adjustment and economic policy reform.
I am not suggesting that we or the international financial institutions have all the answers, but I am sure that in too many countries, particularly in Africa, too many past policies have failed too many people. In

particular, they have failed too many very poor people. That is why we have reshaped our long-term development assistance to Africa and backed our words with cash.
We are providing substantial balance of payments support for countries able to agree adjustment programmes with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In the last finacial year we spent more than £90 million in bilateral programme aid. Last December, we pledged a further £250 million of bilateral programme aid for co-financing with the World Bank over the next three years to assist the poorest and most indebted countries of sub-Saharan Africa.
As I said in a widely unreported speech in Washington recently, structural adjustment is not a short course of curative medicine. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health would agree that, like all good preventive medicine, it has to become a way of life. That underlines the need both to find ways of protecting the vulnerable groups most immediately affected by adjustment programmes—often in the urban areas—and of improving the access of the poorest groups in society to health and education services through the process of structural adjustment. In Ghana, which has the longest track record of policy reform and which since 1983 has achieved an annual average growth of 5 per cent., we are associated with efforts to do both those things. I was pleased to have the opportunity of discussing them this week with the Prime Minister, Mr. Obeng.
We are as sensitive as anyone to the growing awareness of the need to take proper account of both the social and the environmental impact of our aid. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has spoken in our past debates on the environmental impact of development. The Government's response to the Brundtland report "Our Common Future" was published on 22 July. It underlines what we are doing about aid and the environment. We have introduced specific measures to strengthen our internal procedures ensuring that the environmental impact of our aid programme is given the weight that it deserves in evaluation, appraisal and so on. We have made arrangements for tapping outside expertise on environ-mental issues. We are funding specific work such as the Nepal study of the interrelationship between environment-al degradation and macroeconomic policies.
Last week I approved over £14 million for a third slum improvement project in India—this time in Indore. I have seen for myself the first of those projects in Hyderabad, and an extremely successful project it is.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Now that the Minister has regained his composure, may I thank him for the interesting information that he is giving the House, notwithstanding the fact that most of it was already available to us in the excellent handouts that come from the Department? Before he concludes his speech, will he tell the House whether the Government still intend to aim at the United Nations figure of 0·7 per cent. of GNP?

Mr. Patten: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I intend to deal with that point. As he laboured the issue, it would be discourteous of me not to give it the attention that it deserves, to do so with relish and to point out to him some of the intellectual shortcomings of his argument.

Mr. Corbyn: Before the Minister leaves the subject of the environment, will he tell us how successful he has been in persuading the World Bank in particular to ensure that


aid programmes or development programmes that it helps to finance are much more environmentally conscious than previous ones? I have in mind the environmental disasters that have happened in a large part of Brazil as a result of mining projects partly financed by the World Bank and the catastrophic consequences for the rest of the world unless something is done to prevent the destruction of the tropical rain forest there.

Mr. Patten: I do not think that it is going too far to suggest that a number of the environmental NGOs would concede that we have done as much as, or more than, any other bilateral donor in ensuring that these environmental issues are on the agenda for the World Bank in a more prominent place than they have been before. One of our most useful actions was to bring together the World Bank and a number of the environmental NGOs in a conference last year during which issues such as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred were discussed in what the press release might have described as a free and frank way.
These are immensely important issues, but it is important to recognise that some of those who criticise the World Bank on environmental grounds do not want any development to take place. They do not want the World Bank and international donors to spend more in developing countries. They believe that the people in those countries have a divine right to go on living in primitive conditions until the crack of doom. That is an easier proposition to advance if one lives in a comfortable suburb in Europe or North America than in dreadful conditions in a developing country.
The argument is not about growth or no growth. It is about growth that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable, and the World Bank is acutely conscious of that, as we all should be because each year we are still desertifying an area of the planet the size of Nova Scotia and deforesting an area the size of Yugoslavia.
As I said, I was able to see for myself the slum improvement project in Hyderabad. We have just announced our third project—the second was in Vizag —at Indore, and there are good examples of how one can make aid work to assist some of the most disadvantaged groups in society and at the same time make a positive impact on the environment. The project represents an integrated approach to improving the quality of life of about 80,000 slum dwellers, enhancing employment opportunities and giving children better education and health.
Running an effective aid programme requires not only right policies but much dedicated work around the world in the careful preparation of individual projects and programmes. The ODA is acknowledged to be one of the most professional of the bilateral aid agencies and, through our five development divisions and our posts abroad, we maintain an effective presence in the field. I have had the opportunity of seeing many of our aid officials in action and I congratulate them on what they achieve. I am sure that other hon. Members who have seen our aid programme in action, whatever their arguments about the size of it, will endorse that remark.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West referred to Nicaragua and said it was an especially deserving case which needed more generous support from us. Nicaragua is not one of the poorest developing countries. There are

over 60 developing countries with lower incomes per head, and as per capita figures are of such concern to the hon. Gentleman I trust that that one will be of equal concern to him.
It is true that we do not give purely bilateral aid to Nicaragua on the scale of the earlier Labour Administration. British aid to that country peaked in 1977 when Somosa was in power there. I do not know whether there were political reasons for that or whether it was entirely coincidental. But the contributions that that Labour Administration made to the Somosa regime were, I am sure, greatly appreciated.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Tory Members who have just arrived should know that I referred to that in my speech, as well as to the regrettable decline under the Tory Government. As the Minister is talking about per capita figures, how does he justify the comparison between Nicaragua and Costa Rica?

Mr. Patten: The figures for Costa Rica and certain other central American countries include contributions that we make to regional institutions in those countries. In our total bilateral and multilateral contributions we pick up 20 per cent. of the substantial aid that Nicaragua receives from the European Community, which totalled £6—2 million in 1986.

Mr. David Ashby: How does this country's aid to Nicaragua compare with that of Italy and Germany?

Mr. Patten: Speaking off the cuff, both Germany and Italy give a lot more bilateral aid to Nicaragua. Apart from the money that we put through the joint funding scheme for NGOs, our major contribution is the multilateral contribution through the European Community. I am usually pressed by the Opposition to ensure that our aid programme achieves the maximum poverty alleviation and that money is spent as much as possible in the poorest countries. Whatever the politics of the matter, the fact that there are 60 countries poorer than Nicaragua does not seem entirely irrelevant to the argument.

Mr. Corbyn: Before the Minister leaves the subject, will he come clean and admit that there are clear political reasons why the British Tory Government will not give aid to Nicaragua at the level that it needs and deserves because they do not like the process of reform, development and poverty removal that the Sandinista Government are doing their best to carry out? Will the Minister reconsider the position and provide the aid so desperately needed in Nicaragua, where many of the problems have been caused by the war and not for any other reasons?

Mr. Patten: It is perhaps even more relevant to wonder whether there were political reasons for the more substantial aid to Nicaragua in the past. I am content to rest my argument entirely on developmental grounds and to leave discussion of the political aspects to my right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for those matters.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman at every conceivable opportunity.

Mr, Clarke: I am always willing to rescue the Minister from the embarrassment thrust upon him by his own


alleged supporters. As Italy and Germany have a far better record than ours in terms of aid to Nicaragua, does the Minister believe that they were affected by the factors which he claims influenced the Labour Government?

Mr. Patten: I could troop through the House all those countries considerably poorer than Nicaragua where we have substantially larger aid programmes than Germany or Italy. For historical and other reasons, different countries' aid programmes have different profiles. For instance, 75 per cent. of our aid goes to Commonwealth countries. Alas, that is not true of German and Italian aid, however desirable it may seem to us. I think that in the next few weeks the hon. Gentleman will come to accept that there are historical reasons why some countries have larger aid programmes in central America than ours.
The hon. Member for Monklands, East referred to Cambodia, and I shall respond reasonably fully to his comments. As he suggested, the history of Cambodia over the past two decades has been one of appalling suffering. The bloody Khmer Rouge experiment in remodelling society has been appropriately described as taking Cambodia back to the year zero. The Vietnamese invasion, which was initially welcomed as instrumental in overthrowing the Khmer Rouge, compounded the problem of the Cambodian people by extending the invasion into a continued illegal occupation that has lasted for almost a decade. During this period we have refused to give development aid to Cambodia. We believe that aid would send the wrong signal of implicit support for Heng Samrin and help to prop up his regime. Instead, our aid has been directed to Cambodian refugees in the Thai border camps, who have been made homeless by the years of conflict. Since 1979, we have contributed more than £13 million, which has been channelled mainly through international agencies such as the Red Cross and the United Nations. We are the largest bilateral donor of such assistance.
We welcomed the recent tentative signs that various factions in the conflict may be moving towards a political settlement. It is too early to judge the outcome of the discussions in Indonesia, which have just finished. We have taken note of the announcement by Vietnam that it will be accelerating the withdrawal of its troops from Cambodia. According to some reports, as yet unconfirmed, the withdrawal will be complete by the end of 1989, or the first quarter of 1990. We hope that further progress will be made when China and the Soviet Union discuss Cambodia next month.
In view of these signs, however tentative, of movements in the political situation, I intend to examine closely our aid policy towards Cambodia. We have always been prepared to consider assisting any internationally organised relief effort that sought to provide humanitarian assistance within Cambodia. I therefore propose to contribute £100,000 to the Food and Agriculture Organisation appeal that was launched in May for Cambodia. We shall be examining also whether we should now provide some support for humanitarian aid for projects administered by British non-governmental organisations working in Cambodia. It is far too early to consider aid for reconstruction. We would be prepared to reconsider these matters when a Government acceptable to the majority of Cambodians is in place.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West referred to Europe. I set out in a speech at the Royal Commonwealth

Society a couple of months ago, which he may have seen, our principal objectives for the Lomé renegotiation. I do not want to rehearse those again today. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the importance of greater co-ordination between bilateral donors, bilateral donors and multilateral donors, and multilateral donors, even when they are separated by the Atlantic. it is important that the Commission and the Bretton Woods institutions engage in a closer dialogue on developmental objectives. That view is shared by Commission staff and by Vice-President Natali, who has made such a distinguished contribution to the development and strengthening of the Community's own substantial aid programme to which we contribute a large amount of money.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor)—I am coming to the question of gross national product—talked about African debt. Britain has been to the fore in advocating special measures for low-income debtor countries, chiefly in sub-Saharan Africa. The Toronto summit agreed on debt relief measures. The initiative behind that was launched by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the spring of 1987. I am delighted that at Toronto other creditor nations agreed to join us in providing interest rate relief or the taking of equivalent measures. Good progress has already been made in working out the detailed arrangements in the Paris Club. These involve ways of ensuring comparability between the concessions offered by different creditors. I hope that the final agreement will allow measures to be put into effect as soon as possible. It is clearly in the interests of African debtor countries that that should be so.
Finally, let me say a few words about the size of our aid programme. We inherited from the last Labour Government a level of total public expenditure that was simply not sustainable. I do not think that many members of the outgoing Labour Government in 1979 thought that it was sustainable, and I certainly do not think that the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury thought so. Between 1979 and 1983 the priority had to be to get public expenditure under control, and aid could not be exempted from that. It was during that period that aid fell in real terms.
Between 1982–83 and last year, the aid budget was broadly constant in real terms. I am delighted that as a result of the last public expenditure round, or more properly as a result of our economic achievements, we are now planning for aid to grow in real terms. We are aiming for cash increases over our 1987–88 budget of £72 million this year, £140 million next year and £185 million the year after that. That reflects the fact that with a strong economy we can afford to do more, and the fact that, used in the right way, aid can be effective in enhancing economic growth and alleviating poverty. It also reflects the recognition that an effective aid programme is in Britain's own long-term political and economic interests. We have the seventh largest aid programme among OECD donors. My job is to continue to seek further improvement in its effectiveness as the best argument for ensuring that it continues to grow in real terms.
The whole argument of the hon. Member for Monklands, West and other Opposition Members is about the 0—7 per cent. target and the proportion of GNP that we spend on aid. The Opposition always avoid any mention of the target mentioned by the United Nations for official and


unofficial flows—the 1 per cent. target. I suspect that they do that because of our extraordinarily good record of private investment in developing countries.

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose——

Mr. Patten: I keep on giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I am going to finish this point. The United Kingdom provides almost as much in private investment in developing countries as the rest of the European Community put together, but that does not suit Opposition Members' argument.
Let me now turn to the extraordinary proposition that it matters more to have a proportion of GNP increasing than to have real volume increasing. I have no doubt that, without doing anything to the volume of our aid programme, the Labour party, if in government, would ensure in a very short time that we had an increase in the percentage of GNP, because the growth rate would fall so rapidly. That is all that they would have to do.

Mr. Clarke: rose——

Mr. Patten: I shall give way when I have finished.
Let us follow the hon. Gentleman's perverse argument to its logical conclusion. Let us take two countries. Country A increases the volume of its aid substantially year after year, but by not quite as much as its economy grows in percentage terms. That country is bad, in the hon. Gentleman's book. Country B, which has a low economic growth rate, increases its aid programme by miserable amounts year after year, but by slightly larger percentages than its increase in economic growth. That country is virtuous.
To the developing country the virtuous country is the one that is managing its economy successfully and the one whose aid programme is growing in real terms. The resources for building roads, hospitals and schools and for the provision of technical co-operation in developing countries are provided by such programmes and successful economic management. The hon. Member for Monklands, West never talks about absolute terms, volume terms or real terms. It is about time that he recognised that his argument is positively perverse.

Mr. Clarke: The Minister is taking a long time to get to the point. We still want to hear whether it is the Government's objective to achieve the 0·7 per cent. of GNP target, as accepted by the United Nations. Given that other OECD countries whose economies have developed in a similar way to ours, although they have not had the beneft of North sea oil—not one drop in many cases—have still stuck to the 0·7 per cent. objective, why are we not sticking to it, or have the Government gone back on that objective?

Mr. Patten: I believe that four, possibly five, countries have achieved the 0·7 per cent. target, and only one has an aid programme that is larger than ours in real terms. The hon. Gentleman refuses to face up to the fact that volume——

Miss Lestor: rose——

Mr. Patten: I must answer the hon. Gentleman's other question, otherwise he will be on at me again.
The first question that the hon. Gentleman asked obliges me to agree with the previous Labour Government. My hon. Friends may think that that means that I am not entirely sound on this matter, but our views on the 0·7 per cent. target are the same as those expressed by previous Governments. It remains an objective, but we cannot, any more than previous Governments have done, set a timetable for achieving it. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is wrong, he must have also made that criticism of the previous Labour Government because that was also their view.

Miss Lestor: I tried to start with a note of agreement because it is the holiday period. At the beginning of this debate, behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, the Minister, in his conspiratorial way, said "I want about 10 minutes." I said "OK. It is the middle of the night and people want to get away." The Minister has now taken almost three times as long as we agreed and he still has not dealt with our argument.

Mr. Corbyn: And he is in a bad mood.

Miss Lestor: I do not mind that, but I could have taken an equally long time. I did not because I have a degree of honesty when it comes to agreements. My old dad was right when he said "Never trust a Tory."
The Minister is sliding away from the point. He says that he accepts the target of 0·7 per cent. but that we cannot have a timetable for its achievement. Previously he has implied that if GNP goes up it does not matter whether the target slips—that the percentage of GNP spent on aid falls to its present low level—so long as there is an increase in the volume of aid. If he was sticking to that objective and steadily moving towards the 0·7 per cent. target, the volume of aid would be greater than it is now. It is wrong to say that GNP has increased and that, therefore, the proportion spent on aid does not matter very much.

Mr. Patten: I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Member for Eccles. I have spoken for about three times as long as I had intended and doubtless longer than my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office wanted. However, I have given way to every intervention and I have tried to answer the questions that the hon. Member for Monklands, West asked—although I have not satisfied him. If I had delivered the carefully unprepared remarks that I had brought with me, I could have sat down after 10 minutes. However, as the hon. Gentleman made an important speech, I thought it right to try to respond to it. I have not had the advantage of hearing him in full flood before. I wish to make one more point, and then I will sit down, otherwise the hon. Member for Eccles will scold me again.
What matters to me is that we should have an aid programme which is growing in real terms, supported by an economy which makes that situation likely to continue into the future. The best justification for growth in real terms is the effectiveness of our aid programme. At the very least, the hon. Lady, the hon. Gentleman and I can agree that, although some countries would like us to do more, and although they would like us to do more overall, we have an effective aid programme which is a considerable credit to those who manage it and work in it, whether in the public sector or the non-governmental


organisations which play an increasingly valuable role in making sure that aid reaches its targets and helps to alleviate poverty throughout the world.
I could continue, in response to the hon. Lady, but I shall leave it at that and thank the hon. Gentleman once again for giving us the opportunity of dashing around the course. I hope that we shall have a rather longer circuit at some future date.

Orders of the Day — Latin America

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am most grateful for the opportunity to initiate a debate on our relations with Latin America. It is no fewer than 38 years since the last general debate on this most important subject. On 26 May 1950 the House last had the opportunity to review the matter, so I believe that the debate is long overdue. So often foreign affairs debates in this place centre strategically on East-West relations, fashionably on Europe, nostalgically on the Commonwealth and indifferently on the remainder.
Latin America represents some 8 per cent. of the world's population. It has outstanding potential, abundant natural resources, skilled work forces and few extremes of poverty with which we are so familiar in Africa and Asia. Above all, Latin America has a close cultural identification and rapport with Europe.
Britain has long had a very special relationship with Latin America. It was our then Foreign Secretary, George Canning, who acted as the midwife of the independence struggles of the new nations in the early part of the last century, with his statement in the House in the debate on the Address of 12 December 1826 that he had
called the New World into existence, to redress the balance of the Old".
Illustrious Britons fought alongside the freedom fighters in the wars of independence in Latin America. Admiral Lord Cochrane played a vital part in the independence of Brazil, Chile and Peru, and O'Higgins became the first president of Chile. A British legion of veterans of the Peninsular wars made up the backbone of Simon Bolivar's liberating armies in Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador.
We have a great heritage of good will to draw upon in the region. That was supplemented by the leading part that we played in developing its railways, livestock industries, mining and public and financial services. Latterly we earned their respect in the lead we took for the democracies in the second world war.
The affection with which we are still held compares favourably with the respect for the power of the United States, motivated by the Monroe doctrine and which descends into resentment at the United States" high-handedness and pressures over the years—not least that manifested recently in central America.
However, during the past 40 years, we have returned the Latin American affection very poorly indeed. In 1945, a quarter of Latin America's trade was with Britain. As a boy, I saw the majority of merchant shipping coming into the port of Santos in Brazil flying the red duster. By the late 1970s, our share of trade with Latin America had fallen to a mere 2 per cent.—way behind our trading partners.
We should draw on the fund of good will in Latin America, and at least the Government have made a good start. Our trade share now tops 3 per cent. Three of our right hon. and hon. Friends have travelled to Latin America in the past year to rekindle the flames of friendship, but we must do better. When I used to travel through Latin America 10 years ago Britain meant nostalgia to its people—the battle of Britain and the weird game of cricket. But they had written us off as delightfully decadent.
Today we are seen in the context as a new beacon; the virtues of Thatcherism, privatisation and sound economics are extolled. Perhaps the most salutary thing that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench could do would be to encourage our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a tour of the great cities of Latin America. That would show the high regard in which this country holds the countries of Latin America.
We must not let the trauma of the Falklands episode divert us. Latin American solidarity in that matter is proverbially as wide as the River Plate, but only ankle deep. Latin Americans respect our military achievement in the Falklands, but consider the islands a minor irrelevance in the great scheme of diplomatic and commercial relationships. The vivid scar on our relations with Argentina must be allowed to heal with time and without rancour.
British industrialists, told of Latin American opportunities, will often talk of failure to pay, of the debt mountain and of their personal expectations of mud huts, discomfort and palm trees. The debt crisis in Latin America represents Government and bank lending problems, and not necessarily the settlement of trade debt. Even these medium-term lending problems are mixed. Chile, in particular, is paying interest and principal on its debt. Venezuela is repaying official debt, and the recent Toronto summit paid particular attention to overcoming debt problems.
The message must go out: the slumbering giant of Latin America is again on the move, with a new realism setting in. Conditions for foreign investment in the continent are easing. Better trading conditions are prevailing. For instance, Mexico has joined the GATT. There are massive opportunities for joint ventures by companies from this country. There is scope for reciprocity deals with the EEC.
We must give a higher profile here to Latin American affairs. Canning house, the Latin American business and cultural centre in London, already does a sterling job. LATAG—the DTI's Latin American trade advisory group—must be given a greater airing. The British Council must be encouraged in its English language teaching thoughout Latin America. And the outstanding example of the Cultura Inglesa in many countries of Latin America shows what can be achieved in the region. Incidentally, a little more teaching of Spanish and Portuguese in our own schools would not come amiss.
We must also pay closer attention to the sponsoring of students in these countries to come to Britain, to our universities and colleges of further education. We are already making major advances with Mexico and should see what can be done in other countries, notably Brazil.
After a period of extreme difficulty for Latin America's economies, things are again on the move, and I hope that Britain will play a leading part, as it has done in history, in the development of Latin America.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for ensuring that there is a debate on Latin America, albeit at 3 am. I regret that it is seldom debated. I especially agree with one of the hon. Gentleman's remarks: Spanish and Portuguese should be taught much

more in schools in this country. The teaching of the history of Latin America could be developed with great benefit to the school curriculum and to the chairs of the history of Latin American development in universities. I learned virtually nothing about the continent at school, although I have since visited almost all its countries. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned Latin America's significance to Britain in the past because of its trading relations with Britain.
The hon. Gentleman said that developments were proceeding apace in Latin America. It is true that some Latin American countries are experiencing rapid rates of growth at present, but that often masks the most hideous poverty and the most appalling social disruption of people fleeing to large cities, where they lead short, bitter, miserable and poor lives in shanty towns. That is the lot of many Latin American workers.
There are great contrasts in wealth between Latin American countries. Brazil has a per capita income of about $1,700 per year, which is quite high by the standards of developing countries, but Honduras has a per capita income of only $721 per year. Averages can mean very little. If one's head is in an oven and one's feet are in a freezer, is one's body normal? The contrasts in wealth between Latin American countries are quite appalling.
I fear that the attitudes of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in dealing with Latin America's debt problems are solving the problems not for the majority of poor Latin American people but for the banking systems of the United States and western Europe. They are trying to impose economic policies that involve a reduction in public expenditure, loss of education and health programmes, high rates of unemployment, loss of public-sector employment and increased privatisation. That might make some balance sheets in Washington, New York, Frankfurt and London look a bit better, but it does not make life better for poor people, whose efforts to produce crops are not being rewarded if commodity prices continue to be depressed. Life is tough for many poor people throughout the continent.
We should be treating Latin America as part of the same world in which we live and doing what we can to alleviate the misery and poverty of its people. I am not convinced that the economic strategies being used by the world's financial institutions are doing anything of the kind. The line taken by President Garcia of Peru in attempting to limit debt repayments to no more than 10 per cent. of export earnings is a reflection of the anger felt by many Latin Americans about the vast repayments that they must make to banks elsewhere.
Some may say that Latin America's debts should always be top of the agenda and should always be repaid, but I ask them to consider how those debts were incurred. In many cases it was because of the oil boom. The oil-producing states were loaning money to anyone for anything, but the countries that borrowed money do not control the interest rates under which it was borrowed or the commodity prices which their exports earn. The position in Peru, Bolivia and Mexico has become worse as they have had to pay more in interest payments. Increasingly, they are having to take out loans to finance loans that have not been paid. The problem has become quite appalling.
The writing off of debt is the only way in which many countries will survive or recover. That has been recognised by many banks that have written off debts, and last year,


for the first time, some British clearing banks recorded a loss because of non-repayment of debt by Latin American countries.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman should differentiate between writing off the Latin American debt, which has not occurred, and the provision in the balance sheet of major banks against potential loss to the loans they have made, which has occurred. There is an important difference between the two.

Mr. Corbyn: I accept that there is an important difference. I was saying that many banks have accepted that they will not get all their debt back and have made provision for the non-payment of it. I am going a little further and saying that the debt is unpayable because Chase Manhattan bank cannot possess the economy of Peru or Boliva any more than anybody else could. Therefore, there comes a point at which the debt becomes unpayable.
The political consequences of attempting to impose economic models on so many Latin American countries are so catastrophic that I urge people to think carefully before they start urging policies on them that are impossible to achieve.
I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members want to speak, and I do not want to take up too much time. However, I want to deal with central America, which is much in our thoughts at present. The conflicts there are deep-rooted and long-standing. In Nicaragua, the origins lie in the way in which the United States behaved before the second world war in the imposition of the Somoza family, and the war of liberation, which culminated in 1979 when the Sandinista revolution triumphed and the Sandinistas took over in Managua.
Since 1979 there has been nothing but a process of attack, destabilisation, economic and physical warfare and hired terrorists attacking the Government, all paid for by the United States. That has occurred largely because of President Reagan's obsession with the supposed threat to the United States of the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua. That is a bit of a hollow laugh when a small and poor country is struggling to provide its people with a health service, an education system, housing, jobs and opportunties. I do not understand how that can be a threat to the United States, unless it is the threat of an example which may be copied elsewhere in Latin America as people try to escape from the cycle of debt, poverty and deprivation.
The war that has continued since 1979 has cost the lives of thousands of people. It is ironic that the United States gives so much military aid to the Contras but refuses to give any humanitarian aid to the people of Nicaragua, other than through the Contras. The degree of interference in Nicaragua is appalling.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the first 18 months of the Sandinista Government, the United States, directly and through the World Bank and the American Investment bank, made available to the Nicaraguan Government more aid than they made available to the Somocista regime throughout its 19 years?

Mr. Corbyn: The Carter Administration promised substantial aid to the Sandinistas. There is doubt as to how much of that aid was delivered before Reagan took office

and, in effect, prevented that aid from reaching Nicaragua. The hon. Gentleman must agree that President Reagan has been obsessed with Nicaragua since taking office and that that obsession is continuing into the dying days of his Administration.
The process of peace that has taken place in the region in the past couple of years with the Arias peace plan and the agreement that all Governments in each country in the region would negotiate with the opposition forces, be they guerrilla forces or any other form of opposition, was a significant step forward.
In Nicaragua we see the efforts of the United States at their worst. They are trying to prevent that peace process. No Government has been more open, more quick or more ready to accept the Arias peace plan than the elected Government in Managua. At this moment it is still being frustrated by the decisions and destabilisation measures of the United States. Even now, in the last moments before its recess, Congress is debating yet more proposals for a resumption of lethal aid to the Contras against the Government of Nicaragua.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it helps the peace process for the Nicaraguan Government to close down the Opposition radio station and newspaper in direct contravention of what the peace process is trying to achieve?

Mr. Corbyn: In the past, the Nicaraguan Government have closed downLa Prensa, and have now closed it down again, and have closed down Radio Catholica because they were telling absolute lies and were inciting the Contra terrorists to continue their work of maiming.
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that Nicaragua has been at war for a long time. During that war, many people have been killed and all sorts of dirty operations have been undertaken. I have visited Nicaragua several times; I have met the editor ofLa Prensa and discussed these matters with him. He showed me some of the stories that had been spiked out of the paper when it was in publication. Frankly, I was not in the least surprised that some of those stories had been spiked. I also met opposition forces in Nicaragua, before the last elections there.
The fact is that we are in the process of the peace plan. The new methods of destabilisation of the past few weeks have been deliberately designed to obstruct that peace process. I hope that the British Government will do what they can to put pressure on the United States Government not to resume lethal aid to the Contras because, if they do, we are straight back to the civil war and to all the deaths that have occurred. A ceasefire is a precious thing to have achieved. I very much hope that the British Government will be prepared to do what they can on that.
Last week a delegation of us went to the American embassy to discuss these matters and we argued with Mr. Seitz, who is responsible for Latin American policy, our view that the United States should not give any lethal aid. We made strong political points.
One point that cannot be answered by the United States Administration or anybody else is that made by Father Metcalfe, the priest to the Bluefields region on the Atlantic coast, which is not an area in which the Sandinistas initially had a great deal of support, although they now have much more. I am sure that Father Metcalfe will not mind me repeating that he has wondered what he can say


to the people in his parish and region, to the mothers of the young men who have been killed by the Contras, to the relatives of those who have been murdered by the Contras, to the people who have lost their homes because of the Contras, and to the people who have had their crops destroyed by the Contras, about the obsession of a man a few thousand miles away in the White House who is so frightened of the process of liberation in Nicaragua that he finances terrorists to murder, kill and destroy.
It is incumbent on the British Government to express the point of view that they support the Arias peace plan; that they support the right of self-determination of the people of central America—but, above all, that they tell the United States to stop financing the Contras, to stop the process of destabilisation and to give Nicaragua the chance that it is seeking for itself to develop its own economy for its people, and to develop its health, education and housing services. The crime that has been perpetrated against the people of Nicaragua during the past eight years is one of the most appalling since the second world war.

Mr. David Ashby: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is not one iota of genuine opposition to the Sandinista Government among the Contras? Is he saying that no Contras are genuinely and properly opposed to the Sandinista regime? If he is not saying that, is not the process that should be followed one of dialogue and of trying to get the two together?

Mr. Corbyn: Of course the process of opposition must be by dialogue, debate, discussion and election—all those things are possible in Nicaragua. What is not possible in Nicaragua is dialogue, debate, discussion and election if, at the same time, the richest country in the world is financing a group of terrorists to destroy that very process. That is precisely why it is essential that the British Government put all the pressure that they can on the United States to stop funding the Contras.
It is quite interesting that Amnesty International has no cases against Nicaragua at the moment. That cannot be said about very many countries. It is important to remember that the political freedoms in Nicaragua do not exist to the same degree—or any degree—in the neighbouring countries in the region.

Mr. Ashby: I agree with much that the hon. Gentleman says. I take an independent view. However, has not the unofficial human rights group in Nicaragua cited a number of instances of breaches of human rights? Are there not a number of well-documented cases of breaches of human rights in Nicaragua?

Mr. Corbyn: The unofficial human rights group had drawn attention to some cases. Some cases have been resolved and many prisoners have been released under the amnesty towards the ceasefire.
The best way to achieve peace in Nicaragua, as I said earlier—I cannot repeat this often enough—is to end the financing of the Contras so that the peace process and the dialogue can continue. That would be a spur to the peace process and the dialogue in the region as a whole. When the Minister replies, I hope that she will be able to give us some hope in that direction.
I want to refer to the British Government's attitude to Chile. Chile is a poor country. It is one of the most indebted countries in the region. The debt figure per head is $1,540. Some 35 per cent. of its population cannot eat properly. As an example of the very low wages that poor people who have work in Chile experience, I can tell the House that those on the Government's temporary work programmes receive $32·20 a month. There are very many very poor people in Chile.
Chile's recent history is among the most tragic in the region. In 1973, a Government dedicated to eradicating poverty and to the development of a democratic society was overthrown in a brutal coup. General Pinochet has the blood of thousands on his hands. He supervised the murder of Salvador Allende and of about 20,000 other people. He herded all political opposition into the stadium in 1973. Since then there has been a monetarist experiment in Chile which gave great riches to a new middle class and brought terrible poverty to many others. Chile has been through purges; many people have suffered at the hands of the secret police and have been imprisoned. Many Chileans have found refuge here or in other European countries.
Tragically, in more recent years not only have the British Government been happy to trade with General Pinochet, but they have not been as forthcoming as they should have been in condemning the many abuses of human rights. Most appalling of all, they have been prepared to sell arms to Pinochet's Government which have been used to bolster his position in the region.
The horror continues day after day. Last week there was the festival of Chile Crea. That is a festival of culture, science, education and art. During the festival, a number of students were arrested and there were allegations that the Government had tortured people. Such allegations of torture by the Government have been made by many people.
Pinochet does not believe in democracy, fair play or the rights of the Opposition. That is clear, and his record speaks for itself. He is one of the most murderous, bloodstained dictators that the continent has ever seen. I find the British Government's attitude very surprising. They are prepared to sell Pinochet arms and to concede that some democratic process is going on in Chile.
A plebiscite is due to be held later this year, but the registration forms are very expensive, and many poor people will not be able to afford to take part. There will be only one candidate.

Mr. Ashby: indicated dissent.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Member for Leicestershire North-West (Mr. Ashby) shakes his head, but the fact is that poor people cannot afford to take part in the vote in the plebiscite. If the hon. Member looks at the income of the poorest people in Chile, he will begin to realise what I am talking about.
Few people have any faith that General Pinochet, the army or any of the institutions supported by General Pinochet will allow a democratic election of any sort in Chile. I do not believe that the man who murdered his way into power is about to walk out of power because the ballot box finds against him. Dictators are not usually from that mould, despite what some of the United States press might say about him.
We want to know what the British Government's attitude is towards this plebiscite. Do they plan to send any observers to find out what happens during that election? Are they observing the political scene in Chile? The crime that was perpetrated in 1973 against the people of Chile did not stop then. There are not normal political freedoms, in the sense that we understand them, in Chile. There will never be normal political freedoms in the sense that we understand them while Pinochet is in power and the army dictatorship continues. We want the return of a real democracy in Chile, but I do not believe that that is compatible with the presence of General Pinochet.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: One of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has in referring to the events of 1983 is in explaining why it is that overwhelmingly the people of Chile were relieved by the change of power and the overthrow of Salvador Allende, because of the disorder and the hunger that that regime brought about. One of the significant aspects of Chile was the initial strong support for the regime of General Pinochet. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from that point. Further, in saying that a military dictator will not give way he must look at the example of Brazil and a number of other Latin American countries which have made the difficult transition from a military dictatorship to a quasi-democracy without bloodshed.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has come out in his true colours—as an apologist for the murderer that Pinochet is. Only a year before Salvador Allende was murdered, his party received over 50 per cent. of the vote in the local election. Salvador Allende was elected with 33 per cent. of the vote in 1970. By 1973, in all the local elections that took place, the Unidad Popular Front was achieving more than 50 per cent. of the vote. He was murdered at that time because he was so popular, because he was attempting to nationalise foreign-owned multi-national companies and because he was redistributing wealth to the poorest people. That is why the army, the CIA and ITT moved in with a major vehicle for destabilisation. 
The hon. Gentleman said that the coup was some form of popular event. I advise him to talk to the Chilean refugees who live in this country and who went through that hell of September 1973; when they saw their families shot in front of them; when they had to go to the stadium and try to get people out; when people had to hide in the Mexican embassy; and when people had to flee for their lives in fear of a Fascist dictator who had murdered an elected president in cold blood. When an elected Member of the House comes here as an apologist for that process, it is a disgrace of the highest order. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his words of apology for General Pinochet.

Mr. Arnold: I asked the hon. Gentleman to face up to the fact——

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is an apologist, and he knows it.

Mr. Arnold: —that the people of Chile noted the change of regime with considerable relief, because of the suffering and hunger that went before it as a result of the Allende regime. To suggest that that is some kind of apology for

the undoubted breaches of human rights that occurred in that process is a completely different matter and is certainly not the case.

Mr. Corbyn: It is interesting that even now the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to condemn the fact that a military coup took place in 1973 and an elected president was murdered. I find it surpirising that the hon. Gentleman is still not prepared to do that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to do that now, I shall happily give way to him. He does not want to.[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West finds this so funny. We are dealing with a murderer. If the hon. Member for Gravesham wants to condone it, so be it—it is on the record.

Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman still refuses to——

Mr. Corbyn: Why does the hon. Gentleman not answer the point?

Mr. Arnold: I intervened on the hon. Gentleman to ask him how he explains the fact that the military regime of General Pinochet in Chile has undoubted support from the ordinary populace. That does not mean that I condone the disgraceful excesses and infringements of human rights that have occurred in that process. There is the difficult problem, which must be tackled, that the Pinochet regime —perhaps even to this day—has the support of the great mass of the Chilean people. If the hon. Gentleman does not face that, he is flying in the face of the reality of Chile.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is not talking about the Chile that I understood we were debating. If the Government of General Pinochet, as the hon. Gentleman so politely calls him, are popular, why do they require such an enormous secret police? Why do they require so many political prisoners? Why are there so many Chileans in exile? Why are so many Chileans who return from exile in danger? Why are so many poeple shot on the streets? Come on—we are dealing not with a democracy but with a Fascist dictatorship. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman recognised that.
There are, of course, Ministers in the Government that the hon. Gentleman supports who have been to Chile and commended its economic policies. Presumably they are happy that 35 per cent. of the people do not have enough to eat. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the questions that I have raised.
It is on the record that the British Government have sold ships and arms to the Chilean Government. I hope that the Government will say that there will be no more such sales. I also hope that they will say that British military forces will not use bases or any military facilities in Chile as part of the south Atlantic presence.
There is a great deal of suspicion that British forces have been using Chilean bases as part of the Falklands operation. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a clear statement that the Government condemn the violations of human rights in Chile, that there will be no further arms sales and that observers will be sent to see exactly what goes on in the plebiscite. Apparently they are not planning to do that at the moment.

Mr. Ray Whitney: I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for giving the House an opportunity, albeit at this time of the morning, to debate, after a very long interval, the affairs of Latin America.
My hon. Friend is the admirable secretary of the all-party Latin American committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman. I know that his deep knowledge of and commitment to British relationships with Latin America are profound. I hope that this debate will carry that interest forward and that we shall invigorate even more the Government's interest in furthering links between us and that continent.
I would like only to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. Our relationships with Latin American countries are deep and long standing. They are only dimly perceived in this country, but they are remarkably alive in nearly all Latin American countries. Our forebears played a leading part in the liberation of the continent. They did, 150 or more years ago, what I believe the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would thoroughly endorse. It is right that we should continue to take pride in the achievements of our country men and the lives that they sacrificed in the cause of Latin American independence from the Spanish empire, and encouragement from the fact that Latin Americans continue to recognise Simon Boliver, San Martin and all the other liberation heroes of the 19th century.
It is said that the tremendous commercial stake and position that we carved out towards the end of the 19th century and the first part of this century has declined so sharply. Everyone who has visited those countries knows about the railways, the public utilities and the banking systems. For example, Argentina was virtually rescued by the Baring loan in the 1840s and 1850s. All those left a legacy which we have squandered since the war.
The percentage of British trade with Latin America declined to an abysmal extent so that among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries our exports to Latin America were at barely 2 per cent. In recent years there has been an encouraging increase, but we are still only at 3 per cent. of the exports of all OECD countries to Latin America. That is deplorable and we must rectify it. For many years I have sought in various capacities to boost that effort, but so far we have not succeeded to the extent that we should. I hope that those efforts will be redoubled or even quadrupled.
One of our problems is the poor quality of reporting in the British media and probably the western European media as a whole on the affairs of Latin and central America. That is why we have misguided views, such as those we heard from the hon. Member for Islington, North. It must be recognised that the United States held out the hand of friendship to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, following the overthrow of the Somocista regime. The Marxist-Leninist regime of the Sandinistas rejected it and immediately installed a vast army by central American standards before there was any question of civil resistance or Contras. The Soviet Union, its allies and Cuba poured in and built up the army so that the Nicaraguan army is greater by far than the total of her neighbours' armies.
All that happened long before there was any question of action by the Contras or support for them from the United States. The repression that began when the Sandinistas

took office, the impact of the so-called Turbas Divinas, and the mobs and thugs who spread revolutionary terror predated any civil war in Nicaragua. The hon. Gentleman and people like him perpetrate this complete misrepresentation of the real position in central America because of the abysmally low quality of reporting in the British media, and they should not be allowed to get away with it.
The other impact of the low standard of reporting, so much of which is extremely biased, is the poor level of understanding of what is happening. In many respects events in recent years are encouraging. Obviously, there is a debt problem and it would be wrong simply to write it off. The British Government, rightly, are taking a positive lead in helping the countries of sub-Saharan Africa with their debt relief. The countries of Latin America are of a very different order. It is true that they have severe problems, but they are greatly in advance of the really poor countries of the world in terms of per capita income, basic wealth and export earning potential. Each of the countries of Latin America has a different problem. They must be helped in terms of flexibility, and the IMF and the World Bank are providing that, but any idea of a blanket write-off would be misguided for the countries of Latin America—or, indeed, for any other developing country that looks to take loans from the international business community in the future.
I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North that the banking system of the world was, in a sense, becoming too easy thanks to the oil glut and the effect of the Arab oil surpluses. I agree that in the 1970s both the lenders and the borrowers had their faults. I hope that we shall all learn from that. I believe that the debt situation has improved and that it should not be writ too large as a threat.
Our own business men should look at Latin America country by country. The phrase "Latin America" rolls off the tongue far too easily. We all know that there are 20 separate countries with their own traditions and pride and their own possibilities for commercial, political and cultural co-operation. There are great opportunities.
To most of us, the other aspect of relations between Britain and Latin America is the problem of the Falklands. We all recognise that it is a deeply sensitive issue. I suspect that my views are slightly different from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham. I think that the Falkland islands question looms somewhat larger in relationships with Latin America than he believes. I accept that we are talking largely about words rather than reality, but I think that there is some reality in terms of solidarity with Argentina on this issue.
We must continue to ensure that the freedom and the interests of the Falkland islanders are preserved. We should also acknowledge, however, that we are in a brittle situation and that it is not in the longer term interests of the Falkland islanders that this brittle situation should persist. It is unsatisfactory for them, for us and for the region as a whole.
I recognise that the impact of what has happened in the five or six years since the conflict has been a remarkable economic advance for the islands. However, that is a short-term perspective and before very long we must begin to look for a longer term settlement. That will require sensitivity and understanding on the part of the three communities involved—the British, the Argentines and, above all, the Falkland islanders.
The problem will not go away and the Government should realise that and accept that we cannot rest on the status quo, although we must nevertheless recognise that the interests of the islanders are paramount. In my view, they can be preserved and there are ways forward. I believe that even so we can proceed with a much more positive approach to Argentina, and I hope that the Government will take every possible opportunity to do that. The proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham about the possibility of more frequent visits by Ministers—in particular our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—to leading capitals of Latin America is an admirable proposal.
I place more emphasis than does my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham on the need to teach Spanish and Portugese, particularly Spanish, in our schools. We are now embarking on the new national core curriculum and are keen to ensure that what our children learn is relevant to their needs and the needs of Britain in the coming years. One of those is the need for greater facility in foreign languages. The most obvious and effective language, an easy one to learn, is Spanish, a delightful language to speak and one which enables the speaker to communicate with the people of 20 countries.
As we develop and produce the new curriculum, I strongly urge the Minister of State to make sure that her colleagues at the Department of Education and Science are aware of this need. Some hon. Members have been communicating with that Department on this issue and I have been far from satisfied with the response we have obtained. The Government as a whole, including the Department of Trade and Industry with its export promotion responsibilities, must do more about this matter.
It has been a long time since we debated Latin America. This is an extraordinary hour and an extraordinary time in our parliamentary timetable at which to be having this debate, but it has been valuable and I hope the Government will renew their efforts to reawaken British awareness and commercial interest in the continent of Latin America.

Mr. David Ashby: We seldom debate foreign affairs. it is noticeable on the rare occasions when we do that the debates are dominated by what we call the great and good in the House. They make wide-ranging speeches covering the world; they deal with America, Europe, China and Japan, and they might just about deal with South America. But they never deal with central America. The reason for that is historical. We in Britain were put off taking an active part in debates on action in central and south America by the Monroe doctrine in the 19th century. Although that doctrine is said to be something of the past and is not part of our policy today—and is not part of America's foreign policy—it still looms large on the horizon and in fact forms an active part in our policies.
We do not seem to have an independent foreign policy covering central America. That poses a problem because almost every other country has such a policy. We are part of Europe and, come 1992, we shall have the Single European Act. Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and Germany have never been inhibited by the Monroe doctrine and they have policies covering central America.

They are making use of their political clout to make economic headway in that and other areas. I intervened on this subject in the previous debate initiated by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). Yet we are losing out in south America and in central America because we are stuck with this outdated Monroe doctrine as a result of our special relationship with the United States, which still treats central and south America as its own sphere of influence which the British are not permitted to enter. Yet other countries are allowed to do so. The Americans do not say to the Spanish or the Italians, "Hey, this is our area and you should not go there."

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The Monroe doctrine with which the United States said, in effect, "Don't interfere in our back yard," predated Canning's support for independence and was thus the first instance when Britain made it clear that it would not be associated with the Monroe doctrine —a figment of American wishful thinking which the rest of the world, including Britain, has never recognised.

Mr. Ashby: Britain may not have recognised it. but the spirit or idea of it has inhibited our actions, certainly since the last war. Something in the background of our special relationship with America has inhibited our participating as fully as we should. Other countries such as Italy, Germany and Spain have not been inhibited in that way. One has only to consider the aid going to central America and to Nicaragua from Italy and Germany, which are not Left-wing countries. Since 1945, Italy has been a conservative country ruled and run by the Christian democrats. yet this year, and indeed in the past couple of months, Italy has given substantial amounts of aid to Nicaragua. We have not given that kind of help and our exports are not following our economic ventures.

Mr. Whitney: I continue to be puzzled by my hon. Friend's references to the Monroe doctrine, although I share his concern at the decline in our share of exports to Latin American countries, which is now down to 3 per cent. Is he suggesting that the failure of British business men to look for markets in Latin America is governed by a 180-year-old doctrine, or is he suggesting that there is some kind of Government influence involved?
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development pointed out in the earlier debate, the balance of aid to Latin America is different for Italy and Germany because the vast majority of our aid goes to Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend has not followed my argument. I was pointing to the total absence of any substantial independent British policy towards central America. That is the major point. Countries such as Italy also have former colonies into which they put substantial amounts of aid. It may even be that Latin countries have a tendency to put their aid into other Latin countries, but that does not detract from the fact that countries such as Spain and Italy have policies towards central America which are followed up by substantial exports. That is why they are getting the business there. Germany as well has been following up its aid with business and exports. It has made substantial inroads into central America.
I visited Nicaragua about three years ago and I hope to revisit it during the recess to see the changes that have taken place and to renew my friendships there. The


revolution took place following a despicable regime which had been put in place and maintained to a large extent by the United States. There was strong resentment within the region towards the United States for that reason, and that resentment continues to this day.
It is important to remember that it was an all-party revolution, not a Sandinista revolution. When I was in Nicaragua I met a number of people whose politics are not dissimilar from my own. They are Conservatives, but they were all supporters of the revolution. I met Liberals who were strong supporters of it and had participated in it.
The problem is that after the revolution the Sandinistas went on to some extent to hijack it. They took it over as their own. In so doing, they sat upon many who had participated in the revolution. They disregarded them. At times they were to treat them quite harshly.
It was not a revolution that lacked popular support. Indeed, it had the overwhelming support of the population. I believe that the Sandinista Government have the support of the majority of the population. If there were a proper plebiscite, we would find that it is a regime that has the support of the majority. They are a Government who have been accepted de jure and de facto. They are recognised by the United Kingdom and other nations, and they should be respected as such a Government.
In 1984, for the first time for a long time, there were elections in Nicaragua. We must not take a black or white approach to Nicaragua for there are shades of grey in everything. We must not say yes or no, black or white or Stalinist or Marxist. Even within the Sandinistas there are moderate elements as well as elements far to the Left. It is a mix, and it must be regarded as such.
As I have said, in 1984 there were the first elections for a long time. The first steps were being taken towards democracy, and such steps are to be encouraged. It is rather unfortunate that the election was condemned in harsh terms by the world, including the United Kingdom Government and the American Government. It was not a fully fair election, but within limitations it was one to be accepted. We must look to the municipal elections next year and elections in the 1990s in tuning the process of democracy. If we continue to treat this and other central American countries in this way, we are not helping. We should be encouraging what is taking place, and urging the country towards more dialogue and democracy.
We must remember, for example, that a large percentage of the Nicaraguan population has suffered in the wars. I believe that a considerable element among the Contras is genuinely opposed to the Sandinista regime. We are not encouraging dialogue or getting people together by dismissing them as an odious regime. We can take a positive step. It must also be remembered that there are a number of English-speaking people in the Caribbean area. There is a strong English-speaking contingent in the Bluefields area, among the Meskita Indians, and we can be of great assistance there.
In the little time available, let me deal with the Panama. Like Nicaragua, the Panama is being treated most unhelpfully by the Americans. The leader General Noriega has behaved disgracefully, and his involvement in drug-running is well known and documented. But the attempt to destabilise the Government and get rid of him has only strengthened his position and that of his

supporters. There must be a better way of achieving what we all wish to achieve than by destabilising the country to the extent that America has done. Our Government can play a part in achieving a decent, democratic Government there.
We should be taking a positive role in central America, and we should have a positive policy there.

Miss Joan Lestor: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Has the hon. Lady the leave of the House to speak again? I hear no dissent.

Miss Lestor: When we are dealing with a wide range of countries—I agree that we should consider them independently rather than grouping them together—it is very difficult to know which one, or two, to choose in the short time left to us. I should have liked to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who raised the question of the Falkland islands, because I feel that we cannot leave things as they are: at some stage we must return to discussing the future of the Falklands and, indeed, Argentina. But that is a matter for another occasion. I shall confine my remarks to two countries, Chile and Nicaragua: perhaps the Minister will be able to deal with them in her reply.
I am not sure whether my information is accurate, but just before the debate began the Nicaraguan network in Washington told the Nicaraguan solidarity campaign that the Stevens-Dole amendment was being supported by the Democrats and was likely to be passed 60–40 in the Senate.

Mr. Corbyn: Disgraceful.

Miss Lestor: As my hon. Friend says, that is disgraceful. If it is true, it is possible that the package could go through before the Congressional recess on 11 August.
The package proposed in the amendment consists of $27 million to the Contras for humanitarian aid, $20 million for lethal aid and $27 million in unspecified aid including insurance for air transport, making a total of $74 million. That is regrettable. It takes no steps towards what we all want to see—a resolution of the terrible problems in Nicaragua.
It is particularly ironic that, just as the first anniversary of the central American peace accord is reached in August, and while the Sandinistas have again unilaterally declared a ceasefire, the only United States of America contribution to that progress is an aid package to the Contras. That will only continue a process from which we hoped that we had moved away. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) recently led an all-party delegation to protest about that. It was pointed out to the United States embassy that the eight-year war has led to 50,000 deaths. The Contra leadership is now dominated by a man who openly advocates terrorist tactics.
I remind the House that the central American peace accord was a strategy for all central America. However, United States, and to some extent British, policy has emphasised the lack of compliance in Nicaragua. In contrast, to date only the Nicaraguan Government have engaged in serious negotiation with the armed opposition. Talks in El Salvador and Guatemala have long been abandoned, and death squad activity in E1 Salvador is now


increasing at an alarming rate. Deaths and torture have dramatically increased in Guatemala and its Government have closed down a television news station. A weekly newspaper was also forced to close after its building was set on fire.
It is odd, therefore, that of the five central American countries that have signed the accord, Nicaragua should be singled out for infringement of it. Whatever the arguments about human rights abuses, Amnesty International has no Nicaraguan cases on its records. Surely we should ask the United States to leave Nicaragua alone and ask it not to go ahead with the aid package for the Contras. It should try to make everyone comply with the principles of the central American peace accord of non-intervention. At this stage, Nicaragua should be given encouragement and support rather than subjected to sabotage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) spoke about Chile and I agree with his description of its past and the present state of affairs. It now appears that the junta is getting nervous. Recent opinion polls have shown that large sections of the electorate are undecided about the plebiscite that is to take place, and that the noes may have the majority. We do not know whether that is true, but we know that the state of emergency in Chile continues and that it impedes the activities of any opposition to the junta—that is the reason for it. Access to the media, which was promised, is still not allowed.
It is obvious to me and to many other people that, in such circumstances, intimidation will occur now rather than in the final days before the election. It is essential that, from now on, monitoring is undertaken.
The junta has just announced that it will meet on 30 August to nominate its candidate. Under the constitution, that plebiscite must be held between 30 and 60 days after the nomination and the speculation is that it will take place in the first week of October.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley will be part of two delegations to Chile. One is an international, pre-plebiscite delegation. The other delegation will visit Chile in election week when my hon. Friend will be accompanied by Bishop Taylor, Lord Avebury and the well-known barrister, Geoffrey Bindham. It is important that the Government should also play a part in encouraging a return to democracy in Chile. They should send observers, just as the Labour party and others intend to do, to see what is happening now and at the time of the plebiscite.
I hope that the Minister will explain what pressure the Government are exerting upon Chile to ensure that the plebiscite is fair and that it is conducted according to democratic principles. At the moment it appears that such principles will not be observed.
Until 15 years ago, Chile had a long-standing tradition of democracy. We are concerned that, when human rights violations take place, the voice of our country should be heard. Our country should send representatives to Chile to ensure that such violations do not take place and to ensure that the election is held in as free and as fair an atmosphere as possible.
I am conscious that we have had a wide-ranging debate and that many other issues could have been discussed. Although I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), I am grateful that he initiated the debate. J hope that, some time in the future, the

Government will take time to allow the House to debate in full the issue of Latin and central America, which could play an important role in developing other ties with the United Kingdom—particularly trading links, which are badly needed.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the right hon. Lady have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mrs. Chalker: I welcome the opportunity to speak on Britain's long-standing and varied relations with Latin America. It is quite clear that there is need to explain certain aspects of policy.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and I welcome his special role in the formation of the new all-party group on Latin America, which is important to the House. I welcome the role played by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who is the chairman of the group.
Britain's links with Latin America go back a long way. British troops fought under the great General Bolivar in the struggle for independence from Spain. British business, through trade and investment, has played a major role in the development of almost all Latin American economies. British engineers built Latin America's lighting and water systems, its railways and its river craft. The Portuguese royal family travelled in British vessels to Brazil to escape from Napoleon and it is the clearly stated wish of the Government to build on and develop those long-standing links.
The clear trend of a return to democracy throughout the region is encouraging. It is not as fast as any of us would like, but there are now only four Latin American Governments which are not democratically elected. The British Government very much support the process of redemocratisation.
I shall come straight to the point about Chile. The national affairs of Chile attract particular public interest and excitement. It is now embarking on the democratic process by holding a plebiscite later this year. We want an orderly return to democracy. We make that clear to the Chilean Government bilaterally and with our 11 partners in Europe. The EC statement of 11 July makes absolutely clear our wish to see fair elections. We welcome the fact that there is now co-operation between the democratic opposition parties which have courageously come together in the plebiscite campaign. We do not know definitely who will be the candidate for the opposition, but it is particularly important that the plebiscite takes place in fair and open conditions. I respond to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on that score.
I can tell the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that, although we are not sending an official observer delegation to Chile, our embassy will report fully on the outcome. The registered democratic opposition can nominate its own observers and scrutineers at all polling stations, and we shall make best use of our team in Chile during the plebiscite.

Mr. Corbyn: What about registration?

Mrs. Chalker: I have only 12 minutes to finish my comments on several countries. Let me try to get them on the record.
The hon. Gentleman is right in intimating that there is a problem about registration, but it is important to note that there has been an increase in voter registration which is now more than 6·5 million people. The democratic opposition now has access to television. I do not wish to prejudge the plebiscite, but the United Nations special rapporteur has declared that the electoral machinery has been prepared in a serious and responsible manner.
We have consistently made clear our concerns about human rights in Chile. We have done so elsewhere in Latin and central America—particularly in Colombia, in the light of the recent Amnesty report. We shall continue to make sure that we take a clear public stand whenever violations of human rights occur. It is not only a matter of "He who shouts loudest." We must recognise improvements when they take place and encourage further progress. We shall condemn violence from all quarters, however it occurs—and the violation of human rights likewise.
It would be easy to spend the whole debate discussing Chile. The hon. Member for Islington, North asked me about arms sales. He knows that it has been the policy of successive British Governments not to disclose details of defence sales. We believe that Chile has a sovereign right to secure its means of defence, but we take great care not to approve the sale of items that we judge could be used for internal repression, and we shall continue so to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham spoke a great deal about trade and investment. They should form a much more major element in our relationship with the region. The economic importance of Latin America is not always fully recognised. Latin American GNPs total more than those of the whole of Africa, the Indian sub-continent and south-east Asia combined, and we do well to remember that. Recent moves in the area to modernise economies present important opportunities for United Kingdom business. It has become a cliché that our trade performance is poor. It is now about 3 per cent. of the market in most countries again, having previously fallen to 2 per cent., but our entire trade with Latin America is only about 2 to 3 per cent. of our foreign trade. United Kingdom business men could and should do better, although our percentage share has risen over the past four years.
Latin America is now beginning to emerge from the debt crisis, although I readily admit that it is still worrying for many nations. In trade terms, however, Latin America is ripe for a more concerted export effort. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of personal contacts and of regular visits to the area. Official services are ready and glad to help. I commend the work of the Latin American trade advisory group which brings together those from Government and business who are interested in improving our economic performance there.
I must also mention the reopening of the consulate in Miami, and the British Florida chamber of commerce, which are there to assist United Kingdom trade into Latin America and the Caribbean. The DTI has held a seminar on the advantages to British companies of selling through Miami, and missions to the region are being encouraged to consider Miami in their itineraries before launching forth into Latin America.
We are seeking to offer exporters a range of services for Latin America, as for other markets, and the increasing interest of British companies, which is being reflected in the growth of market share, suggests that the service we are giving is effective. But we shall be truly effective only if—as hon. Members have said—our people can trade in the language of the countries with which they wish to trade. That means Spanish and Portuguese being spoken by our business men, let alone being taught in our schools.
Despite Latin America's problems, it is important that its potential should be made better known to investors. There is now well over $1 billion worth of investment in Brazil, where we are the fifth largest investor. A number of British companies with subsidiaries there and in Mexico and Venezuela, in which we are the third largest investor, are doing well. By expanding debt-equity swaps, we want to give a new entree into these markets. The Government are paving the way for business in Latin America by double taxation agreements and investment protection agreements. We are determined that our competitors, who have been active in Latin America in recent years, will not have the field left to them.
As hon. Members have said, debt still looms large in the popular perception of Latin America. We are trying to work with Latin American nations to solve the debt problems on a case-by-case basis. Many Latin American nations have made enormous sacrificies to meet their debt obligations. I welcome recent moves by Brazil and other countries to reach agreement with their creditors. I understand the frustrations that have been expressed in the debate, but we shall succeed in helping those countries economically only by working with them, not by simply believing that problems will go away if we ignore them. That has sometimes been the attitude of a few countries.
I shall not speak at length about the drugs industry, but one of the most worrying aspects of Latin and central America is the seamy side of their marketing of drugs. It is rather like a ghastly parody of economics that there are problems with demand and supply. If the cocaine problem is not tackled effectively, the dangers not only for south America but for the rest of the world are enormous. We shall continue to attach a high priority to combating the corrosive effects on all our societies of drug misuse and trafficking.
Many of the points made by hon. Members about drugs were too detailed to answer at this stage, but we are giving material support to Bolivia and Peru and have pledged money to the United Nations drugs law enforcement programmes to tackle the problem. We welcome the efforts being made by Latin American Governments to combat the evil of drugs. We shall attack the problem from the cultivation of the basic crop to the smuggling of it into developed country markets and its sale and consumption on the streets of our cities.
I must deal with central America, although I cannot spend long doing so. I add a serious note of caution about the position in central America, where, sadly, the peace process is barely alive. Esquipulas II offers the best hope for peace. We call on all central American Governments to redouble their efforts to implement its provisions in full, especially the conclusion of ceasefire agreements to make rapid progress towards a pluralist democracy. It is important for Europe to urge all parties to comply with their commitments, especially for democratisation. In this


context, I deplore the recent measures taken by the Nicaraguan Government in direct contravention of their Esquipulas II obligations.
Together with our EC partners, we welcome the Esquipulas II agreement, which was made in August 1987, and the Sapoa truce, which was made in March 1988.I am sorry that the regional peace process and the Nicaraguan ceasefire talks are virtually at a standstill. The peace agreement is still the best hope, and we must make progress at the various meetings of central American foreign Ministers and presidents, which will be held, as the hon. Member for Islington, North said, in August, towards a successful, peaceful, negotiated settlement of the conflict in the region. We shall continue to urge all parties to comply with their commitments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) accused the Government of not having a central American policy. It would be helpful to write to him at length to outline what is going on in central America.
I was asked whether I would condemn the United States' support for the Contras. My colleagues and I have been asked that question many times of late in the House. United States' policy is a matter for the United States. We do not always agree with the United States, and that is well known. Our position is quite clear. We shall continue to advocate peaceful, negotiated solutions, not military ones. We believe that to be as right in central America as anywhere else. The problems of the region cannot be solved by armed force, and we shall continue to urge restraint on all sides. We tell the United States of our views repeatedly.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the importance of language. I commend the sterling work being done by

Canning house in promoting the study of Spanish and Portuguese. However, we need more teaching of those languages in our schools. We shall continue to press our colleagues for greater attention to be paid, not just to the language training of children but to the need for teachers able to train the next generation of children.

Mr. Whitney: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: We try to help with scholarships for Latin Americans to come to study here and some of those Latin Americans help to increase our understanding of their countries as well as increasing their understanding of our country.
I cannot go any further other than to say that the Latin American region is one of great potential. We have historical links and we want to build on and expand those links. There are opportunities for business. Much work has been done and much remains to be done. The debate has been useful in showing our recognition of the importance of the region and I hope that by the efforts of the group in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe and other hon. Members are participating we shall be able to build up political and economic links between Latin America and the European Community.
Latin America is increasingly looking to Europe, and we have made it clear that we support regional integration in Latin America. We hope that the region will learn some lessons from the European experience and that there will be greater political dialogue between the European Community and the group of eight countries, which has been a recent feature of international life. There is much to be done, and at 4.21 am it is time we got on with it.

Orders of the Day — The Environment

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is an odd time of the day to be debating anything, either ending or beginning. However, I am glad of this opportunity to speak on the environment. This is the first debate that any member of my party has introduced under our new leadership. I hope that it is significant that the first debate opened by a Social and Liberal Democrat under that new leadership reflects two of the expressed concerns of our leader—our internationalism and our environmentalism. As my party's spokesman on the environment I am glad to have this opportunity.
I welcome the Minister on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box. She would probably have chosen a different time and possibly a slightly fuller House. However, it is good to see her. I congratulate her sincerely on her appointment. I am a little embarrassed because I intended to write to her to congratulate her but she is on duty so quickly that I have been beaten to it.
I have to concede that I campaigned briefly against the Minister's election in the year after I was elected. I had mixed thoughts about the result, but I am glad that she can sit on her party's Benches and has been promoted and taken on her new responsibility. I am sure that she will do a good job.
It is said that, as yet, the structure of the Government does not allow us to have a department of environmental protection with the same overview of environmental matters as the Treasury has of economic matters. I received today the list of ministerial responsibilities under the new regime since the Government reshuffle earlier this week. It is to be noted, and a little regretted, that so far there has not been a clear division of ministerial responsibilities with appropriate titles, similar to the previous way, which I thought was an improvement in the way in which the Department was structured after the general election. Ministers were then described as being the Minister of Environment, Countryside and Water, the Minister for Housing and Planning, or the Minister for Local Government. Perhaps that will come but it is not yet the way in which Ministers are described. At the moment the Under-Secretary of State has a rather anomalous group of responsibilities in her Department. I hope that in future the Department can be structured in a way that will allow the importance of environmental protection to be recognised in its form as well as in its subject matter and work.
What I propose to do is to air a range of issues of which I notified the Minister's office. Without wanting today to have a particular go at the Government, I want to put these issues on the political agenda. The Library has told me that there has not been a general debate on international environmental matters since the 1979 general election. That is sad. I hope that one objective that we may achieve in the coming years is more often to debate our international environmental responsibility.
The title of the debate that I submitted originally to the Table Office was "The Global Environmental Crisis." In the way that the Table Office does, that title was slightly amended to be more objective and less judgmental. But it is the growing awareness of the environmental crisis internationally which has prompted me to seek this debate, and it has prompted many people in the country and

throughout the world—not just politicians—to raise it recently as a much more important issue on the political agenda. That is a good thing. It is good that our international and environmental responsibilities are now seen to be politically important.
I confirm that by referring to the words of the Prince of Wales when he presented the European Year of the Environment awards at Merchant Taylors' hall in the City of London in March this year. He said:
When we read that over the next 60 years, if we go on as we are doing, something like a third of all the forms of life at present living on this planet may be extinct, can we feel anything but a kind of cosmic horror?
We were facing a serious and urgent challenge on a huge international scale.
Too many political leaders still gave far more attention to the obvious costs of action than to the concealed costs of inaction.
That recognition represented an increasing awareness among the establishment in this country, as well as a general concern. An opinion poll, conducted last year by MORI on behalf of Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund, showed that 81 percent. of respondents felt that the Government should give a much higher priority to protecting the environment. I am sure that that is a correct analysis of people's concerns and that that number will increase rather than decrease.
I am aware that this subject crosses departmental boundaries. Clearly, it involves the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the overseas aid and development portfolio. The two areas are very much interrelated because the way in which we contribute economically in trade and in patterns of trade within the international community affects environmental matters. Therefore, it is difficult in simplistic terms to analyse how much we spend on environmental protection because some of that expenditure is hidden rather than explicit. However, I should point out that there is concern, and I ask the Minister to take on board and recognise the fact that we have been cutting our expenditure on important environmental matters in certain key areas, which is to be regretted.
In reply to a parliamentary question last month the Secretary of State for the Environment gave total figures for the Department's expenditure on environmental research and protection. The figures were then broken down into expenditure relating to radioactive waste, air pollution, water and countryside. The figures supplied cover 1981–82 to the present day.
In real terms, expenditure on radioactive waste and water matters in connection with environmental research and protection has been reduced. It has been reduced for radioactive waste from £11·9 million in 1981–82 to £9·9 million in 1987–88. Expenditure on water has been reduced from £4·5 million to £3·5 million over the same period. We have seen attacks on science and research funding and there have been staff cuts at the Natural Environment Research Council. An article appeared inThe Guardian on 6 July anticipating large-scale cuts in oceanographic research. The Minister should recognise that there is scientific and professional concern that we are not spending what we should to ensure that Britain is sufficiently aware of what is happening. We are not investing sufficiently in research on environmental matters. I hope that that position will be reversed.
Everyone who has considered this subject believes that expenditure today can be very helpful in preventing


enormous waste and destruction tomorrow. Unless we are prepared to make that financial public expenditure commitment, the Government's contribution to the strategy of dealing with environmental destruction and despoliation will be considerably impaired.
One of the encouraging aspects of the past few years has been the amount of international concern about this issue. The Minister will be aware that there are two seminal works on the subject—one more general, the other more specific. I am referring to the Brandt and the Brundtland reports.
I want to refer to some of the comments made by the Prime Minister of Norway. Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland was appointed by the United Nations to chair the World Commission on Environment and Development at the end of 1983. Her statements are trite in a way, but they deserve to be repeated because they reinforce the conclusion that, after taking evidence of the international nature of the problem, there is a need to deal with the issues internationally. Mrs. Brundtland states:
one of the most fundamental of our findings is that the problems we face are global in nature and that they defy solution by local or even national endeavour … There is now a growing recognition that much of today's development is not sustainable. Rather it is based on a squandering of our 'biological capital'; soil, forests, animal and plant species, even air and water. It consumes its own ecological foundations. The result has been devastating, as was bluntly stated by Bjornulf Kristiansen, a speaker at the Commission's Oslo meeting.
He said:
The most serious threat facing the world today, apart from nuclear war, is a global ecological crisis.
Mrs. Brundtland continues:
Many of today's economic, monetary and trade policies as well as energy, agriculture, forestry and human settlement policies, induce and reinforce non-sustainable development patterns and practices. Widespread poverty and concentrated affluence conspire to increase environmental degradation, to increase pressures on resources and to increase inequities that lead to global instability and political tension. Indeed, poverty can be said to be one of the most important environmental problems.
One witness who gave evidence in Ottawa said:
Poverty is self-sustaining, a self-generating process that compels people to live in a way which destroys valuable soils, water resources and forests. Much of the environmental degradation is the result of the desperate search by the poor and the landless for such basic needs as fuel, food and water. Small farmers are held responsible for environmental destruction as if they had a choice of resources to depend on for their livelihood, when they really don't. In the context of basic survival, today's needs tend to overshadow consideration for the environmental future. It is poverty that is responsible for the destruction of resources, not the poor.
It is not that the poor are unaware of the problem. I met an impressive man last year, who was the leader or representative of a group in north India, mainly women, who have taken to protecting their trees by hugging them, and they received one of the Right Livelihood awards. They did this to protect what is both necessary for their ecology and their community. They have taken direct action and it has been successful.
Mrs. Brundtland continued:
We are beginning to learn that there are better ways to manage our small planet than to 'react and cure': we must anticipate and prevent. This may sound simple and obvious, but it requires that we recognise environment and development as essential and mutually reinforcing goals. We must learn that we cannot separate the two. The environment is not a luxury, nor can it be postponed until later. Environmental considerations must be built into development at the earliest possible stage, otherwise it will not be

economically sustainable. The world—and especially the Third world—is littered with cases of 'development-without-environment', often aid-supported, that have literally consumed their own bases—in soil, in water and other resources—and ended up reducing rather than increasing the future economic potential of their countries.
Finally, it requires that we begin to take a much broader view of environmental policy, seeing it not just as air, water, waste and noise policy, but more importantly as resource, energy, agricultural and transportation policy, and development assistance, trade and economic policy".
I started there because that was the conclusion by the representatives of the international community, which made it clear that we must look at the subject as a whole. Of course, the subject is made up of component parts, and I now want to deal with them in turn.
Land is a delicate, finite and precious resource. Every year we lose more than 200,000 sq km of land to desert. That happens because of erosion, over-grazing, over-ploughing, poor irrigation and bad farming techniques generally. According to United Nations estimates, every 10 years the Sahara desert alone spreads by the size of Czechoslovakia. History shows repeatedly how more ancient civilisations have been destroyed by desertification than by conquest. There are some very telling examples. The Sahel comprised what once were great civilisations. Timbuktu, which we are all taught in primary education was the end of the earth—the furthest and most remote place one could ever get to—was the centre of a vast empire at the time of the Roman empire. The Lebanon was once famous for its magnificent cedars, which it exported around the world, and were used to build the royal palaces of Egypt, of Babylon and of Assyria, but there are not many of those left. The pattern has been changed as much by ecological as by military or economic change. It is important to recognise that.
By straining land in the short term, the very agricultural practices that produce the food surpluses, which enable civilisations to flourish, starve them in the long term. For example, the area along the southern Mediterranean—all the African shoreline—used to produce the wheat for the Roman empire. Now there is very little production of wheat or other crops; it is very much desert with, I suppose, some tourism thrown in. A once grain-rich area has given way to sand.
Desertification is a major international problem. The expansion of deserts has been far more rapid in the past few decades. We must realise that other countries feel the consequences of that process. The whole international economic order is affected.
Global warming is recognised as a cause of desert expansion. There was an interesting conference in Toronto at the end of June. It considered, even if not for the first time, the climatological crisis that will arise if we continue to interfere with the atmosphere. It is estimated that the earth's temperature has risen by between 0·3 and 0·7 deg. C this century. If the temperature were to decrease by only 4 per cent. on average, we would be into a new ice age. An increase of 0·3 per cent. is therefore enormously significant.
The greenhouse effect contributes to global warming. The concept is now well known and it is the subject of parliamentary questions. It was debated in the other place earlier today. Its causes are becoming clearer. They are gases and pollutants which are used by man, the felling and burning of tropical rain forests and additional carbon dioxide, methane and fluoridated hydrocarbons and other gases which accumulate in the atmosphere, preventing


heat from bouncing back into space. The climatological consequences of that are potentially devastating. Many cities could be flooded within 50 or 60 years. If Antarctica were to melt just a little, we would face enormous problems, and they would be the result of our own activity.
There are simplistic ways in which to tackle the problem, such as dealing with CFCs and gas pollution produced privately and by industry, but we must co-operate internationally to anticipate and deal with the potential crisis.
We destroy the earth's resources substantially through soil erosion. Scientists estimate that soil which can have taken between 200 and 120,000 years to form can be lost in a few years. We know from our own gardens that topsoil is vulnerable. It is much needed and can be "lost" easily. Topsoil only 2 cm thick can be removed by wind or water power, but farming throughout the world depends on it. Soil was previously able to form at the same rate as it was eroded, but the pace of erosion now outstrips reformation alarmingly.
The wind erodes soil when natural vegetation cover is removed. Man might cut down forest or overgraze grassland, as happened in the American dustbowl disaster of the 1930s. The soil was lost because of the interests of short-term production. A very odd phenomenon resulted. About 350 million tonnes of fertile topsoil were blown up into a giant cloud, even producing an eclipse. The topsoil was lost and it has taken half a century to recover from that climatological aberration. The retention of soil for farming in this country and north America, particularly in times when, as now, there is a substantial drought, has an important effect. Farming and incentives to farming that we encourage through our aid programme and collectively in the international community are influential.
The third form of effect on the land is water erosion. When the natural protective cover of trees and plants disappears on hills and mountains topsoil can be lost permanently. I gather that 25 million tonnes of soil is washed away by rains, rivers and flood waters every year. Next week I hope to go to north Wales where my family comes from. I have been there in August most years of my life, when there is normally a substantial amount of heavy rain. We see in a small way exactly what happens. It is a major problem and we cannot prevent the effect of water eroding the soil, but we can work to anticipate how we recover it. That is particularly necessary in the poorest areas of the world where only one phenomenal period of heavy rain can eliminate the potential for farming for a long time.
Since farming began in the United States it is estimated that one third of the topsoil across the nation has been lost. The present escalating demand for firewood and forest land for cultivation will mean that increasing quantities of our precious land—I say that as a world citizen—will be exposed to degradation. There are deserts in every continent bordered by vast areas of semi-arid land that support huge populations, many of which are in danger of becoming deserts. We tend to forget that the semi-arid areas provide the world with 20 per cent. of food supplies and support 850 million people. If in 60 years' time they become desert, 20 per cent. of our food capacity will be lost, probably when there is an increase in population making demands on those areas.
At present, 230 million people are directly threatened by desertification, and by the year 2000, only 12 years hence, one third of the world's present farm land will be desert. That is a frightening statistic. Although that figure is reached using the scientifically agreed definition of a desert, which is according to its aridity, we will have a major problem which we must help to solve.
At the same time we must recognise that if we farm over-intensively, whether in our country or by contributing through chemicals and so on to farming abroad, and if we interfere in the soil composition either by using chemical fertilisers, lime, humus and other ways of dealing with the acidity of the soil, or by over-intensive ploughing we shall damage irreversibly an element that we need. The issue is simple: man and woman cannot survive without food, and the earth produces it.
The second most fundamental element of our environment is air. The older citizens of this city will be more aware than most people of air pollution at its worst. I remember that when I was young we had smog the like of which we no longer see. I was brought up in what is now Greater Manchester and we certainly had some pretty grim autums and winters. Such conditions caused thousands of deaths at the turn of the century and before.
We have done better than that. The Clean Air Act 1956 was the beginning of recent legislation on these matters. Unfortunately, however, we do not yet have clean air. A number of very effective lobbying organisations are still trying to ensure not only that legislation is introduced but that when Acts such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are passed their provisions are implemented. Sadly, in the past decade or so there have been substantial delays between the enactment of legislation on this subject and its implementation.
We have moved pollution away from the centres of population. We have made chimneys taller and thus spared ourselves, but the pollution that we create now gets sent further afield—western and northern Europe have been the principal and doubtful "beneficiaries". It is a well known fact—we have debated the question quite often —that the forests and lakes of Europe and north America are being damaged, in some cases irreversibly, by the pollution that still comes from our manufacturing processes.
The obvious enemies are sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides, which are discharged mainly by power station chimneys. They mix in the atmosphere to produce acid rain, which may fall near or further afield. Every time I drive up the M4 I look to see the state of the trees on either side of the motorway. People have examined, much more carefully than I, the terrible effects of acid rain in Germany and Scandinavia. The Scandinavians are still very cross with us—that is putting it nicely—because we still cause destruction to their fish stocks, lakes, fjords and trees.
Approximately 40 million tonnes of airborne sulphur dioxide were still being produced in Europe a few years ago—the equivalent of 66,000 30-tonne lorries full of sulphur being dumped directly into the lakes of Europe. In southern Norway, more than 13,000 sq km of lakes are nearly empty of fish. It is estimated that 50 per cent. of trees in West Germany are affected.
Unfortunately, we are still the dirty man of Europe. We still produce nearly 30 million tonnes of airborne sulphur every year—two thirds of which is blown away to Scandinavia. It is estimated that of the 610,000 tonnes of


sulphur deposited in Sweden every year, only about a sixth comes from there; the rest is imported, not by invitation but because we expel it.
I am sad to say that we have dragged our feet. I know that at the Environment Council in June we reached an agreement to reduce our sulphur emissions by the turn of the century. It was not as much as Opposition Members —and indeed some Conservative Members—had hoped for. Our refusal to join the 30 per cent. club is sad, and there is substantial room for improvement. I hope that the Minister will take a specific interest in that. The Department has done some good work but when it comes to the crunch we are one of the countries in Europe that has been most reluctant to agree to strict enforcement of control on our pollution.
Similarly, the ozone layer is threatened by air pollution produced on an everyday basis by our chemical processes. That produces not only harmful effects on the environment, but health consequences, too. Skin cancer is on the increase and it is suggested that a factor of 2 to 3 per cent. of its increase is attributable to the damage to the ozone layer. Ultraviolet radiation is causing increased eye disease and there are also effects on marine ecosystems, plant life, crop and timber yields and so on.
The third major element is water, the third resource in the world under threat. Our planet's waters have been contaminated by waste deposited in the sea by rivers, streams, pipelines and dumping vessels. I heard on "Today in Parliament" at 11.30, over five hours ago, about a debate in the other place in which they discussed how, when we talked to the French about sewage deposits, we suggested that perhaps the answer was to make our pipelines longer. Apparently the French replied that if we built longer pipes, sending out our sewage nearer to them, they would build longer pipes, too, and we would get similar coming back. That is clearly not the way to proceed.
With the threat of unclean, environmentally unacceptable beaches—which have now to be notified; we have all had experience of visiting beaches which are foul, to put it mildly—we often have foul water. There are hazards of a short-term nature, and concern has also been expressed recently about the aluminium contamination of water in Britain. Water pollution is bad for the health of this and every other nation, bringing bacteria, viruses and other disease-causing effects. The pollutants are mainly industrial by-products—apart from sewage—and we have a responsibility to deal with this issue to protect ourselves, marine and bird life.
About 3·5 million tonnes of oil is dumped into the sea every year. The Mediterranean contains an enormous amount of sewage, 85 per cent. of it untreated. If people knew that as they waited at Gatwick airport they might decide it was not such a desirable and healthy place to go for their often delayed summer holiday. Mussels and oysters are becoming increasingly unsafe to eat. Typhoid, paratyphoid, dysentery, polio, viral hepatitis and food poisoning are common. They are caused, among other things, by poisoned and contaminated water.
In addition to contaminating the water, the world has been guilty of over-fishing and over-drawing from the marine environment. We cannot afford to do that. For example, nearly one third of Peru's foreign exchange is earned through anchovy fishing. In 1974, it fished 9 million tonnes of anchovies, and the world was grateful for the fish. But those methods allowed woefully insufficient time

for the anchovies to breed and replenish themselves, and by 1980 the catch had gone down to 1 million tonnes. One could give many other examples worldwide. That sort of foolish over-exploitation causes many problems.
In Britain and elsewhere we rely on estuaries for the breeding of fish, crustaceans, and so on. But that is where pollution is at its greatest because of chemical, industrial and sewage pollution. As a result, many of the world's estuaries are dying. We cannot put off dealing with that problem.
If, as estimated, there is a 200 to 300 per cent. increase in water withdrawals in the world by the end of the century, we must make sure that the water that is withdrawn is suitable and is used properly. At the same time, the water table is falling in many key agricultural areas. Much water needed for irrigation is being lost through over-evaporation and transpiration and is not available for re-use.
If we do not have water we will perish. Earth, air and water are the staple elements of our planet's life-support system. With them we have the basis for food and shelter. With them we can accommodate, feed and provide the resources for the increasing global population, and that is one of the remaining issues with which the world must deal.
Although world population growth has been slowing since 1965 to 1970, the highest annual increase, averaging 87 million extra people per year, will be between 1990 and 2010. The global total has already passed 5 billion and may reach more than 10 billion before it starts to level out— and 96 per cent. of that growth will be in the developing countries. Regional trends are highly diverse. Birth rates remain high in Africa and western Asia, growing at 3 per cent. and 2·8 per cent. per year respectively. In Latin America and south Asia the figures are 2·3 per cent. and 2·2 per cent. and have started to slow down. In east Asia, the increase has slowed considerably. Rapid population growth, coupled with wasteful or polluting technologies and lifestyles, are depleting the planet's finite resources and jeopardising our life-support systems of soil, forest and climate. We can produce enough food to feed future populations, but in 73 of the 122 developing countries food production has fallen behind population growth, arable land per person is declining and in many countries population exceeds, or soon will exceed, the carrying capacity of the land. That is a vital area to address in terms of political pressure.
Aid for population programmes is still inadequate. Since 1965, when the total was just £10,000, it has grown to £1 million and then to £15·5 million, but population programmes receive only 1 per cent. of total British aid compared with an OECD average of 1·5 per cent. British bilateral aid is patchy, with one or two projects accounting for a large chunk of the aid. In 1984 and 1985, two thirds of our bilateral aid for population programmes went to one project in Orissa state in India. The whole of sub-Saharan Africa received an average of only £235,000 per year from us in the three years from 1982 to 1985—the price of a four-bedroom flat in Hampstead, as was pointed out in a briefing note that we all received, and scarcely an acceptable contribution on a world scale from the British Government.
Aid for population programmes drawing attention to the dangers of failure to act and concern that we give more


in overseas aid must be among the key elements of our strategy in the future. We must anticipate the greater problems that lie ahead.
We must educate to ensure that our young people are aware of their global responsibility and invest in that education. We must encourage the idea that an environmental approach to all our activities, particularly our economic activity, is a prerequisite for a sustainable economy for us all in this and every other country. Those are the principles of environmental awareness that we must follow.
I end as I began, with a quotation from Mrs. Brundtland:
We stand at a crossroads. In the past the pursuit of 'progress' in the industrialised West was founded on four dominant beliefs: that people dominate the earth, that they are masters of their destiny, that the world is vast and unlimited, and that history is a process of advancement, with every problem solvable. But we must now call into question those four basic beliefs. Instead, the essential basis for sustainable development must be the concern for the world's environment. We need individual participation at all levels in the care of the planet and, based on this deeper and wider perception of the basis of life and human activity, we need profound changes in economic and social attitudes. If the planet is to be saved, this is a battle we are all called on to fight.
Government and Parliament have a responsibility to respond to an international call such as that. Whether it is food, energy, arms, defence, aid or education policy, we have a collective responsibility to ensure that all activity of Government makes for a much greater priority to be attached to it. I believe that the international community is now ready to be pushed into taking that sort of action. I hope that our Government will make international environment and responsibility a major political priority. I trust that we shall see that reflected in an increasing amount of attention being given to these matters in this place, and increasing resources given to them on behalf of the people of Britain, both in energy and in money.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It is a privilege and an honour to reply to the debate, which has centred on environmental issues. I thank the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for raising such important questions, and especially for presenting his remarks in such a thoughtful, detailed and well-informed fashion. I thank him for his kind remarks about my appointment. I have taken an interest in our environment throughout my career, and it is an exciting challenge to tackle the many problems that remain to be solved.
The Government's environment record is a good one. One of the first papers that I read this week was the Department's recent publication that is entitled "Protecting Your Environment". This excellent guide, which understandably had to be reprinted to meet public demand, sets out succinctly and convincingly the Government's policy for environmental protection. Our basic principles stress the need to base decisions on the best available scientific foundation, to adopt a preventive approach and when necessary take precautionary measures, to set realistic goals for the quality of the environment, and to take full account of technical feasibility and economic considerations. We want to

ensure that the public are aware of the state of our environment and that their feelings are reflected in our policies, which are designed to develop the concept of the best practicable environmental option. We have published today a consultation paper on integrated pollution control.
We recognise the international dimension to so many environmental problems, and welcome the fact that the hon, Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has chosen to focus on this aspect of the subject. We play our full part in finding international remedies.
I am especially keen to work more closely with the many environmental groups that have done so much to raise the profile of environment matters, and with the press and the journalists who keep the public better informed and more enlightened about the vital importance of developing policies for the environment worldwide.
I am looking forward to working with my noble Friend Lord Caithness, the Minister of State, who has already proved his commitment to the environmental cause as well as showing his great skills as an international negotiator. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to some confusion about the roles of various individuals. My noble Friend will still lead on this subject, but I am pleased to say that I shall be speaking on environmental protection in this place.
I hope that the House will join me in paying a tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibilities for sport. He has shown his understanding and persuasive abilities in this place when discussing these important topics.
I pay a personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). She is a much valued parliamentary colleague whose concern for rural housing, the provision of low-cost houses and protecting villages has greatly impressed the House. Her personal commitment to and support of the housing association movement is well known to us all in this place and to many outside.
Before dealing with the issues that particularly affect the Department, I shall deal briefly with some of the arguments that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was advancing, which is some respects should more properly be raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). Having had the privilege to serve my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development earlier in my time here, I am well aware of the serious commitment the Overseas Development Administration has to many of the topics raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. He rightly pointed out the extent to which these subjects cross departmental boundaries. One of the privileges of being a Back Bencher that I am quite sad to lose is that of being able to stroll freely across Departments. I shall now have to observe the convention and confine my remarks primarily to my own Department.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the ODA booklet "The Environment and the British Aid Programme". The questions of preservation of soil, desertification and tropical rain forests were all given keen attention during the International Year of the Environment, and I think that he will find there a good deal of useful material. The tackling of population expansion, which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned, is also a matter primarily for the Overseas Development Minister. The Government accept the grave threat to sustainable development posed by rapidly increasing populations in many poorer parts of


the world, and we share many of the Brundtland report's conclusions about giving more priority to support for primary health care activities, with special emphasis on mother-and-child health and family planning.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has taken great steps to spell out the need for reform of the common agricultural policy, and to consider the overproduction in Europe and the United States in the context of the shortages in many Third world countries. Again I refer the hon. Gentleman to the work done by the Minister for Overseas Development on the reform of food aid, in which he has given priority to these issues.
Let me return to the responsibilities more directly in my Department, particularly the international aspects. Clearly the European Community plays a central role. More and more legislation in Brussels affects our lives here. Important EC legislation helps to govern the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the seas and the life that surround us, and even our stratosphere. This is not an imposition; the Government are positively committed to improving the quality of our environment. We see Europe as a challenge, an opportunity to share our concern for the environment and to work together with others on transboundary issues to shape the environmental future for our own children and those of our fellow Europeans.
A major event last year was the European Year of the Environment, which was a great success in the United Kingdom. Our national committee included many non-governmental bodies, which played a crucial role. It mounted an energetic publicity campaign which stimulated hundreds of first-rate, small-scale environmental projects. This is relevant to what was said by the hon. Gentleman in relation to the increasing public awareness, interest and concern about these important subjects.
The European Year closed on 31 March, and its momentum led within three months to European Ministers agreeing far-reaching measures to protect the environment. The positive role played by the United Kingdom in helping to bring about those achievements was of major significance.
On 16 June, after four and a half years of difficult negotiations, the Environment Council reached agreement on the large combustion plants directive: a phased programme of reductions in emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from power stations and other large combustion plants. Even more far-reaching was the agreement to ratify and implement the Montreal protocol. I am glad to say that we also reached agreements in December 1987 and June this year on pollution standards for medium and small cars. June also saw the virtual conclusion of negotiations on amendments to the so-called Seveso directive, which deals with major accident hazards from chemical stores. We also made substantial progress on a draft directive aimed at controlling waste from the titanium dioxide industry. We hope it will be possible to sew up an agreement in November.
The hon. Gentleman rightly spoke about the importance of air pollution. Many thought that the Clean Air Act 1956 would solve the problem. It was a major improvement and a recognition of the need, but of course new threats have emerged and developed since then.
This year we have reached historic agreements on the means to protect the quality of our air. I thought that the

hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was a little mean-spirited in his description of the country's performance in that regard.
The outstanding agreement is the large combustion plants directive. The directive commits the United Kingdom to reducing 1980 levels of sulphur dioxide emissions from existing large combustion plants by 20 per cent. by 1993, by 40 per cent. by 1995 and by 60 per cent. by 2003; and nitrogen oxide emissions by 15 per cent. by 1993 and by 30 per cent. by 1998, again from a 1980 base.
Before that agreement, the United Kingdom was already undertaking a substantial £1 billion programme to reduce acid emissions, the second largest in Europe. That included plans to retrofit three major Central Electricty Generating Board coal-fired power stations with flue gas desulphurisation equipment and to fit all major CEGB coal-fired power stations with low-nitrogen oxide burners. All new coal-fired power stations are required to have technology to control acid emissions. The commitment undertaken in the directive will require substantial further effort over and above existing programmes.
The United Kingdom can be proud of the major part it is playing in reducing European emissions and helping to bring about an end to the acid rain problem.
Vehicle emissions are another important component of acid rain. They are set to fall substantially following the Government's intention to introduce, as soon as practicable, tighter new exhaust emission standards agreed in the European Community in December. Still further progress was made last month when EC Environment Ministers reached agreement, subject to views of the European Parliament, on the further tightening of standards for small cars.
I would like to point out the great strides we have made in promoting sales of unleaded petrol. The Government are fully committed to the introduction of unleaded petrol. My first engagement in the Department was to chair the unleaded petrol group, which brings together the oil and motor industries, consumers and Government Departments to work for a smooth transition to the new fuel. In this year's Budget the tax differential in favour of unleaded petrol increased significantly. Unleaded fuel is now being sold some 6p per gallon below the price of 4-star and comfortably below that of 2-star. There are powerful incentives for motorists to save money and contribute to a cleaner environment.
I urge all motorists to find out whether their cars can use unleaded petrol—two thirds of cars can run on unleaded petrol, although some may need a minor adjustment. Some 1,520 petrol stations now sell unleaded petrol—a significant improvement, but there is still further to go. Environmental groups, fuel companies, vehicle manufacturers and the media, working with the Government, must urgently get the message across to more motorists.
Global issues need global solutions. Protection of the ozone layer is a classic instance of the need for action on an international basis. The United Kingdom was one of the first countries—and the first EC member state—to ratify the Vienna convention on the protection of the ozone layer, which we understand is due to enter into force in September. We played an active part in negotiating the Montreal protocol to control emissions of chlorofluoro-carbons. That protocol is a landmark in international


co-operation on the environment. It is the first international measure designed to prevent rather than cure a global environmental problem.
Our first priority—shared with our partners in the EC —is to ensure that the protocol enters into force on 1 January 1989 as planned and with the widest possible participation. On 16 June the Council of Environment Ministers agreed, in principle, proposals for the Community and for all the members states to ratify the protocol before the end of this year and to implement it in the EC. Clearly, however, in the light of important scientific developments since Montreal we must look ahead to the process of assessment and review of the protocol measures. British scientists, economists and officials will be participating fully in the international meetings in the Netherlands in October which will set the process in hand. By then the Department's stratospheric ozone review group will have published its second report, which will give a full assessment of the latest evidence. In the meantime, we have noted carefully the warning in the executive summary of the group's report issued last month about the need to strengthen the protocol. The Environment Council, on 16 June, gave a clear political signal in its resolution on the ozone layer about the importance of going beyond Montreal and calling for further measures on a voluntary basis to reduce the use of CFCs and halons to the maximum possible extent.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned research. I can assure him that the NERC changes will not affect research on stratospheric ozone. The United Kingdom has a strong programme of stratospheric ozone research. British scientists were involved in the Antarctic campaign last September, and will be involved in the Arctic programme next January. The Department supports this and other work and keeps in close touch with the results of other United Kingdom research programmes, principally the Meteorological Office, NERC and SERC, collectively amounting to some £2 million a year. The United Kingdom has taken the initiative in bringing together research programme managers from EC and EFTA countries to discuss how stratospheric ozone research in Europe should be co-ordinated. Progress on that front has been encouraging.
The protocol provides a stimulus to research into alternatives. The two United Kingdom producers are actively engaged in research and development work to find substitutes and have joined an international consortium to speed their commercial development.
We are all well aware of the importance of the issue of climate change, raised by the hon. Gentleman. As my noble Friend said in a message to last month's conference on the changing atmosphere in Toronto, the principle of sustainable development faces possibly its greatest challenge in man-made climate change. Its causes and effects pose difficult and challenging problems which can be solved only internationally. There are great uncertain-ties, but it is important to reduce them as quickly as possible by co-ordinated international research. The Department has increased spending on climate change research and has commissioned a study of possible impacts of climate change on the natural environment of the United Kingdom. There are measures which can be taken now on the basis of our current understanding. For

example, CFCs and halons are also greenhouse gases. The Montreal measure will not only benefit the ozone layer but reduce the greenhouse effect.
Turning to the water environment, the hon. Gentleman mentioned bathing and the water round our beaches. I can assure him that £70 million a year is already being spent on cleaning up bathing water, and it is likely that the amount will increase.
The United Kingdom has a history of international collaboration on measures to prevent and remedy pollution. Because of our island location, we do not suffer from the problems of transboundary pollution in the same way as many of our continental partners situated on major international waterways. As a result, much of our collaborative effort has been directed towards combating pollution of the seas.
The North sea is one area in which the United Kingdom has taken a series of initiatives, together with its North sea partners, to make a real contribution towards protecting and improving the international environment. Last November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hosted the second international conference on protection of the North sea. Its successful outcome was internationally acknowledged.
The United Kingdom has taken an early lead in implementing the conference declaration. In February the Department published a detailed guidance note on implementation addressed to water authorities, industry and other relevant agencies throughout the United Kingdom. Today we are publishing our detailed proposals for reduction of dangeous substance inputs to rivers. Earlier in the year a new programme of regular aerial surveillance was launched by the Department of Transort to monitor illegal discharges by ships and offshore installations. In March, we hosted the inaugural meeting of the international scientific task force and, together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution is now reviewing licences for liquid industrial waste dumping and incineration.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Lady give an undertaking that, in investigating those issues, her Department will look closely at the development of "the polluter pays" principle so that the people who pollute our waterways pay for the cleaning up?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I shall certainly consider it with some urgency. I know that it is the subject of discussion, and I shall provide him with a more considered response.
Many of the issues raised tonight—and many more— are covered in depth in the Government's response produced this week to the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, "Our Common Future". The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey paid his repects to and drew at length on the Brundtland report. Like his, the Government's response recognises the importance of a variety of Departments. They include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the ODA, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Energy, the DHSS—or rather the DH and the DSS—the Ministry of Defence, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices, the Treasury and indeed the Prime Minister herself——

Mr. Simon Hughes: That shows better than anything I could have said the importance of giving one Department a cross-departmental lead responsibility in environmental matters. In economic affairs, it is impossible for Departments to run their finances without someone from the Treasury taking charge. Clearly, as the Minister's list shows, the same needs to apply to environmental matters. Either her Department or another newly created one needs to be in charge and bring others together.

Mrs. Bottomley: An excellent response has been produced by co-ordination and collaboration, and I find no fault or difficulty in that. I commend that response to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.
When the Brundtland report was launched in April 1987 the Government gave it an immediate and warm welcome. The response, "Our Common Future", examines the report point by point in more than 60 pages of detailed commentary. It demonstrates where we have already made progress in putting the message of the report in hand. For example, all Government Departments have been asked to examine their policies against it. But the report also recognises that many of the problems identified will require concerted international efforts if they are to be resolved. We are working hard through various international organisations, notably the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations environment programme, to follow up the report. And we have seconded a senior Government official to help the Norwegian Government with their preparations for a major follow-up conference in 1990 to review progress. Copies of "Our Perspective" have already been placed in the Library. I would thoroughly commend it as suitable holiday reading for all hon. Members.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister says in her foreword, "Our Perspective" describes where we stand in the United Kingdom. It is intended to inform interested organisations and individuals at home, and to stimulate further international consideration of the report, notably within the OECD and the United Nations. I see it also as a contribution to the ministerial conference which the Norwegian Government will hold in 1990 to examine what progress we have made to safeguard "Our Common Future".
The Prime Minister's remarks underline the nature of the task that lies ahead. Considerable and encouraging progress has already been made on international measures to protect the environment. The Government have played a leading and constructive role in a series of important achievements. In the past year the Montreal protocol was signed and the successful second North sea conference held. In the past few months agreement has been reached on the European Community large combustion plants directive and the Luxembourg vehicle emissions package. The EC ratification and implementation of the Montreal protocol, the endorsement of the Brundtland report by the Toronto economic summit and the publication of our formal response to it have all occurred in recent months. Only a consultation paper on integrated pollution control was published.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on raising this vital subject, and I assure him that I shall give serious consideration to what he said. This has been an excellent opportunity to emphasise the great importance that the Government attach to improving and preserving the environment, to highlight a number of the Government's achievements in this crucial area and to point the way ahead.

Orders of the Day — National Health Service (Lottery)

Mr. Simon Burns: I should like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health for being present at this unearthly hour of the morning, and I apologise for subjecting her to being present for the debate.
The purpose of the debate is not to discuss the funding of the National Health Service but to consider the effect of lotteries in providing additional funds for the Health Service.
People in this country enjoy a justifiably high reputation for giving generously to good causes. The Charities Aid Foundation has calculated that in 1985 there were 160,000 charities in England and Wales, which raised over £12·5 billion for good causes. Just under 9 per cent. of those charities raised money for health-related services.
Since that time, there have been the phenomena of Live Aid, telethons, the Wishing Well appeal and other fund-raising events, which have shown that we are a nation of givers.
In addition to high-profile fund-raising activities, there are different forms of local lotteries across the country, which raise money for a variety of richly deserving causes, including the Health Service.
In my constituency there is the excellent Friends of St. John's hospital, which is always raising funds through lotteries, even if they are called raffles. Two children's intensive-care cots were provided for the local hospital by people in the area joining together and raising money through fetes, collections and raffles.
In the past two months, Trafford health authority has announced the setting up of a local lottery to help finance a breast cancer screening unit, a coronary-prevention programme and a scheme to help children who have special emotional and learning needs. All these enterprises are laudable, but I wonder whether the prizes of dinner for two in an air-raid shelter, a trip down the Manchester sewers or a day at an operating theatre as an observer will appeal to everyone.
While raffles and other fund-raising activities have gone from strength to strength in the past few years, the same cannot be said of local lotteries, which are allowed under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. They must be registered with the Gaming Board for Great Britain or a local authority.
In the past five years, total ticket sales and the number of lotteries have declined dramatically. In 1983–84 there were 4,045 local lotteries registered with the Gaming Board for Great Britain, with total ticket sales of £40·;4 million. In 1987–88 the number had fallen to 1,401 lotteries, with total ticket sales of £21·5 million. These figures show a decline of 76 per cent. and 59 per cent., respectively, over that period.
Why have local lotteries, which raise additional funds for the Health Service and other good causes, fallen off so much while other forms of fund raising have done so well? The answer is that local lotteries are too small to generate enough interest to be a success. They dilute their effects, and the maximum prize money of £2,000 or £6,000 is too low. The fact that draws do not take place for weeks or

months after the sale of tickets dilutes excitement, anticipation and interest to the point where most people will not participate.
I am convinced that the answer to that problem, which would bring immense additional financial benefit to the National Health Service, would be a single, legal national lottery. It would help to avoid the problems that we have seen over the past few months. Organisations, such as the National hospital trust, have tried to get round existing lotteries laws and jump the gun. With a properly run national lottery, over £1 billion could be raised for the National Health Service by the fourth year of its operation. That money could be spent on extra equipment, such as kidney machines, computerised axial tomographic scans, intensive-care cots or on providing more accommodation so that parents could live near the hospital when their children had to stay in hospital for more than a day.
A national lottery would harness the deep-seated generosity of the British public and provide invaluable additional funds in a way that would create excitement and the reassurance that if somebody does not win a prize they will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that the money they have lost has gone to a good cause. In that way they would not feel that it was money down the drain. The vast majority of British people are not puritanical. They enjoy a harmless flutter and would warmly welcome an initiative of this nature.
It must not be forgotten that this idea is not particularly new or revolutionary. The first lottery in England was in 1569 to raise money for repairing the Cinque ports and our sea defences.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is more than one sort of lottery in life? Some people are born healthy and others are born unhealthy. Some people who are born with handicaps are able to go to court and come out with £500,000 if they can blame somebody else, but some people come out with nothing and have to carry a burden all their life. Any source of funds that can help the Health Service is of help to them.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and I agree with him.
Since 1569 and the first lottery, lotteries have been used to raise money to bring fresh water to London and for the ransom of English slaves in Tunis in 1660. Just as the Sydney opera house was built by lottery money, so was the British museum in the 1750s, with the first prize being a staggering £200,000.
Since then, supporters of national lotteries have ranged from the 1978 Royal Commission on gambling, which concluded that
there should be a single national lottery for good causes",
to Sir Robin Day, who wrote in The Times in May 1987 that he believed that a national lottery
would greatly enrich the national life…and be hugely popular into the bargain.
Even the noble Lord Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in a previous incarnation as Labour's Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1960s, supported the idea of a national lottery.
A national lottery for the Health Service would be monopolistic. That might seem odd coming from someone like myself who believes passionately in deregulation. However, I have reached that conclusion because all the


advice I have been given from directors of state lotteries in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Ontario is that it is only with a single lottery that the scheme will work properly because it will not dilute the effect of maximising the fund-raising initiative or general excitement generated, which is so important to the success of a lottery.
There should be an independent monitoring body such as the Gaming Board to ensure that the lottery was being run properly and honestly. The day-to-day running of a national lottery should be put out to private tender and a private company with proven expertise in that business should be appointed to run it. The successful company should have a fixed-term contract of three or five years and should provide all the money to finance the investment in setting up the system, as is done in the United States.
I would envisage 20,000 to 25,000 retail outlets using the latest technology and all linked to a central computer to register the sale of tickets and make the draw. Points of sale would be in existing retail outlets such as tobacconists, confectioners, newsagents, supermarkets, corner shops and sub-post offices. It would provide a valuable additional income for those outlets. In certain instances it may help to keep open small shops in rural areas.
There would be a series of games costing either 50p or £1 and would include lotto, which has proved to be so popular in newspapers such as The Sun, and instant games. The lotto games would be drawn daily and weekly with a number of smaller prizes and one large prize at the top of the pyramid. If the large prize was not won, it would be rolled over to the next draw and in that way substantial prizes could be won. Again, that would contribute to the publicity of the scheme and would help generate excitement and encourage people to buy tickets.
Lotto, which is used in some of our national newspapers, and the football pools show that people are attracted by the idea of being able to win a substantial sum of money in one go. Looking at the money that would then go to the National Health Service, the costs would break down as follows. Operating and advertising would initially be no more than 15 per cent. of the total sales revenue per year. That figure should and could be reduced to between 8 and 10 per cent. once the lottery is firmly established. Prize money would be 50 per cent. of sales revenue and the money that would go to the National Health Service would start at 35 per cent. of sales revenue in the first year and rise to 40 per cent. by the fifth year.
The example of other countries—we are the only country in Western Europe that does not have a national lottery—suggests that by the fourth year of operations a British national lottery could raise £1 billion for the Health Service on a total sales revenue of £2·8 billion. That figure is arrived at by projecting the revenue for the Health Service of £246 million in the first year on a sales revenue of £703 million; of £564 million in the second year on a sales revenue of £1·6 billion; and of £836 million in the third year on a sales revenue of £2·2 billion.
If hon. Members doubt those figures, I suggest that they examine the sales revenues that have been generated in other countries. In Spain, in 1986, the sales revenue was £3·5 billion; in the 22 states in America that have lotteries it was £7·3 billion; and the story is similar in France, West Germany and Australia. With that sort of money being created, the Great Ormond street Wishing Well appeal

could have received its money in two weeks and Peter Pan's profits could have been used for further items of expenditure in that hospital.
The other issue at stake is that when 1992 arrives and we have a European internal market I understand that there will be nothing to stop lottery tickets from France, Spain, West Germany or anywhere else in the Community being sold legally in this country. If there is no lottery here for the National Health Service or any other good cause, the people who buy those tickets in this country in the hope of winning a prize will be contributing their money to some foreign good cause rather than to one in this country. In my view, that would be a grave error.
I should now like to deal briefly with those critics who claim that a national lottery for the Health Service would encourage gambling or take money from existing fund-raising activities. I accept that there are people who have serious misgivings about gambling, but I wonder how many take part in lotteries when they go to their local church fete, their Conservative garden party, their SLD Chablis and Brie do, or their Labour fund-raising functions. All such functions hold raffles to raise money. It is the most elementary form of lottery in this country, but nobody raises a hair because in the view of the people attending the money is going to a good cause. To my mind, a national lottery for the Health Service would come in the same bracket.
Similarly, people will claim that a national lottery would deter other fund-raising activities. That is true but only with regard to the football pool companies. Over a number of years, their revenue would decline because the number of people who play the football pools would decline correspondingly as they bought tickets in the national lottery instead. Football pools are, to all intents and purposes, a national lottery, but with the difference that, although they pay taxes to the Treasury and donate about £16 million to the football clubs, any profits that they make go into the companies' coffers. Surely that money would be better going to the Health Service. Perhaps there should be a system that complements the football pools with a lottery. People would then have a choice between the two.
Some people also fear that a national lottery would deprive existing charities of funds. I do not share that fear, nor do many charity organisations and organisers with whom I have discussed this. They also believe that a national lottery would simply complement the existing system and in some ways would help the charities because, by encouraging people to give money to good causes, they would be encouraged to give money to a local charity as well. The experience in Massachusetts and Ontario shows that charities do not lose out by the presence of a national lottery.
There is also an argument that the Treasury would try to get its hands on the money and absorb it into general public expenditure. That is a too cynical view of the Treasury and how it behaves. The Treasury would not behave like that, because it would consider the experience in other countries where treasuries or exchequers do not poach the money.
If people are worried that the Treasury would hover over the money like a vulture waiting to grab it, the money can be denied to the Treasury if it is never given to it. The money could be placed in a separate fund, organised by the great and the good who have experience of running charities or of the health care sector. Local hospitals could


contact them directly with appeals for money or equipment and hospitals that met the criteria could receive money.
Lotteries have a role to play in providing additional funds for the Health Service. I believe that a single national lottery would fulfil that role, providing a great deal of money for the Health Service and an immeasurable amount of fun for millions of people who would welcome the idea by supporting it and buying the tickets. They would ensure that it was the success that I passionately believe it would be.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on his good fortune in being drawn in the ballot in such a position that his debate has been reached. I also applied for a place in this debate and was drawn at No. 16. However, it is unlikely that I shall be reached.
I welcome all sources of additional funds for the National Health Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford made an excellent case for a major lottery. I believe that a large national lottery could stimulate the collection of funds in small local lotteries. However, some people feel that a large national lottery would draw funds away from small local lotteries which have always done so much to raise funds for local hospitals.
In Bolton a great deal of money has been raised for equipment for the local hospitals and for the larger hospitals in the region, such as the Christies hospital for cancer in Manchester. Such small local lotteries could well be stimulated by general interest in a larger lottery for the Health Service.
I welcome the introduction of another source of funds for the Health Service, because health itself is a lottery. The point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford earlier is that it is all a matter of luck. Some people are born with good health and some without it. Some 2 per cent. of children are born with a registrable handicap. Scientists have said that cancer is, in many cases, a purely random process. It is all a matter of chance whether some of us will suffer from a disease that will kill us while others will live.
About one child in 50 is born with a registrable handicap. Of those, a further one in 50 has a major handicap which presents massive problems to the family when the child is born. Many of the children fail to survive, but with modern medicinal methods increasing numbers survive to become adults. Parents may have been able to cope with young children, but as they grow old they struggle desperately to manage youngsters who may grow physically into adults, but have severe mental handicaps.
If parents cannot manage, their children may have to go into a National Health hospital or into some other institution, or be adopted or fostered by other families who are able to cope. I draw attention to an appeal for funds by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, which says that it costs £2,000 to find new parents for each severely handicapped child. It is appealing for an extra £50,000 during 1988 to meet the increasing demand for its services. Perhaps that is the sort of cause that could benefit from the moneys raised in a national lottery.
Bolton has a better record than most both for care in the community and for the fostering and adoption of not only healthy, but handicapped children. It has been chosen as a pilot area for care in the community.
I should like to address my remarks to the funding of this aspect of the Health Service which would benefit from the moneys raised in a lottery. Care in the community has been the Government's policy for 25 years, but it still causes a great deal of confusion. I was surprised to read that that confusion exists not only in the minds of the public, but in the minds of mandarins. New Society of 18 September 1987 stated that a former DHSS permanent secretary apparently said to his staff:
If you are not confused about community care, it shows you are not thinking clearly.
I felt then that I had, perhaps, been thinking clearly about this subject all along.
As I said, Bolton has been chosen as a pilot area for care in the community policies. Families who live in the area feel that there is good statutory provision up to the age of 19, but after that there is a cliff edge with little beyond. The families say that they need good respite care so that they can cope for part of the time themselves with the confidence that their handicapped young adult is being properly cared for during the rest of the week.
In Bolton I helped to carry out a survey of families with handicapped children over the age of 19. That showed that many of them are unhappy with the services available to them. If respite care was more readily available, many. parents feel that the respite homes could become more permanent homes as their children become older and they themselves reach the end of their lives.
In my constituency some of the most desperate cases that I have come across fall into that category. I have encouraged parents to form a handicapped action group, and I have helped them to prepare a survey of their needs. After interviews with some 40 carers with very severely handicapped children—that includes people who may have the minds of children, but have the bodies of 30 or 40-year-olds—it was clear that there was a need for much improved services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford will be aware of the Audit Commission's report and the Griffiths report, which first reflected the tension which inevitably exists between individuals, the Health Service and other providers in the local area and central Government.
We would all like to know what the Government's response will be to the Griffiths report on care in the community. I hope that the Government will make clear which Minister has responsibility for care in the community, especially after the division of the Department of Health and Social Security.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject, but at the same time I feel that he is poaching on another hon. Member's debate. If he relates his remarks much more to funding the National Health Service rather than to care in the community, I will hear him out. I ask him to try to relate his comments much more to the subject before us.

Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful for your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker.
More funding is needed for Health Service provision in this area. The feeling that there is insufficient funding, and of uncertainty about how it is to be provided, has led to


confusion about provision for the mentally ill and those who suffer from some mental disorder. There is confusion nationally as well. Funds must be allocated properly.
If additional funds were made available through a lottery, perhaps they could be used to smooth out the difficulties caused by funding by different local departments. The division of the Department of Health and Social Security may add to the confusion. I do not know whether responsibility for care in the community will lie with the Department of Health or with the Department of Social Security, the address of which may now be known as the DOSS house. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister has not been able to establish which is responsible in the short time that the two Departments have been established.
No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us how funds that are made available nationally will be divided between the two Departments. Griffiths said that the problem is essentially local. His solution is to give greater responsibility to local authorities. I take a different view, and ask the Government to carry out a full audit of every area in the country to assess how each area is coping. The audit could be carried out by the Social Services Inspectorate or the Audit Commission, or perhaps both, but the SSI will have to be beefed up for such a task.
I have heard good reports of both bodies, so both could make a contribution. The Government have not said when the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 will be implemented in full. Reports, especially by the SSI, will be needed on sections 7 and 11 when they are implemented. Section 8 has already been implemented. It would be nice to know what advice my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to give to local authorities on services that should be provided for the carers.
The survey which has been conducted in my constituency shows considerable dissatisfaction with services provided by the health authority and others. One of the worries is that if someone who suffers from a severe mental disorder is to go to one of the new neighbourhood network homes, he or she must first go to one of the local large mental institutions such as Brockhall or Calderstones to qualify for funds to come out again into a neighbourhood network home. That is bureaucratic nonsense. We must provide for people to go straight from their own family home to a neighbourhood network home without the nightmare of two moves and going into a large institution, which the family will have struggled all their lives to prevent the child from entering. That was one cause of concern.
Another was the fact that a child with a mental disorder could go to Pendlebury children's hospital, but from the age of 19 could not be seen locally and would have to go to a mental health institution to be provided with the necessary drugs or whatever. Great anxiety was expressed in the interviews, and perhaps I may write to my hon. Friend and tell her of the anxieties brought to my attention so that she can be aware of local feelings.
Without taking up further time, I conclude by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford for affording me time in his debate to draw the attention of the House and the public to some of the problems in this sector of the NHS which could be eased considerably if additional funds were provided by a lottery. I hope that it would be sufficiently flexible to sort out some of the difficult areas in the care-in-the community policy where

the bureaucratic nightmare of the provision of funds between all the Departments involved could be overcome by the discretion which could be exercised by the trustees of a large lottery-funded provision.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Edwina Currie): This has proved to be an interesting end to a lively week for this Minister and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for offering us, in a well informed and argued speech, this opportunity for considering once again some of the possible alternative forms of funding for the National Health Service. My hon. Friend will realise that policy on lotteries is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I shall ensure that he is aware of the points that have been made today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) did me the courtesy earlier today of discussing some of these matters with me and I hope that he will accept that at present I should like to note his thoughtful remarks. I know that he will send the fruits of some of his research in Bolton to me and I look forward to it. I take his point about exactly how the allocation of responsibilities for aspects of community care will be met, and I assure him that the announcement of ministerial responsibility will be made in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford mentioned some of the lotteries in the United States. A great deal of research work has gone into this. There is a strong tradition there because some of the earliest English public lotteries were run to support the new colonies. I think that the earliest was for Jamestown, Virginia. Contrary to some of the ecclesiastical history in this country, the colonists in America relied heavily on lotteries to support their churches, which were among the primary beneficiaries. There were a number of other good causes and many of those lotteries trace their history back to that time.
At roughly the same time, European Governments seized on lotteries as sources of new money. Official lotteries were started in the Netherlands in 1726, in Denmark in 1754, in Spain in 1763 and so on, and some of these lotteries are continuing. By the mid-1800s Government lotteries were falling prey to abuse and fraud, as was everything else at that time. Licensing procedures and communications were simply inadequate to the task of ensuring the integrity of the games. Profits were diverted to middle men and to pay bribes, so that the money flowing through to the designated beneficiaries was no longer sufficient to make the operation worthwhile. Therefore, by 1900 there were virtually no official lotteries in the English-speaking world, although they continued un-broken in many parts of Europe. That is why there is such a diversity of experience now between us and Europe.
Today Government lotteries are big business and represent important sources of money to many countries. Governments around the world use lottery profits to the benefit of good causes or to enlarge their general fund. Of all the countries in the developed world, not just western Europe, only the United Kingdom is without a national lottery.
My hon. Friend mentioned some countries in detail. Many people come across the glossy promotions which they give to their national lotteries and think that we


should do something similar. They do not realise the cost of prizes and promotion. Administration in some established lotteries usually consumes a large proportion of the takings—sometimes as much as 60 per cent. The net benefit is comparatively modest.
Apart from that, such schemes do not enjoy consistent support. After the first year or so people tend to lose interest and new incentives must be devised to try to maintain support.
I have a little experience of lotteries myself. When I was a councillor in Birmingham, we tried to take the opportunity presented to us by a local lottery, which went very successfully for a while. A substantial sum was raised in the city. However, as with other local lotteries, after a couple of years interest dropped away and so did the money. Fairly rapidly, the administrative costs started to swallow a much larger proportion of the money that was being offered by Birmingham citizens.
My hon. Friend will know that a Royal Commission on gambling reported in 1978. It concluded that it would be inappropriate to use a national lottery to help fund services such as the NHS which have a statutory source of funding. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if some of my remarks, which will show some sympathy for the report, seem a little negative. We always welcome additional ideas, especially for more money for the National Health Service. I suspect, however that a national lottery for the Health Service would neither produce the net return nor be as trouble free as my hon. Friend seems to claim.
Even if the entire estimated net yield from a national lottery were devoted to the National Health Service it would probably continue to contribute only a tiny percentage to the costs of running the service. All sorts of figures have been bandied around, but given that the National Health Service is costing about £23·5 billion a year to run now, we could not expect a lottery to provide more than a tiny percentage. There would also be considerable problems in allocating this comparatively small sum to provide any worthwhile addition to normal funding, with no guarantee of a steady income.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of European Community countries selling lottery tickets here. However, he should be aware that our legal advice is that the development of the European Community's internal market cannot be used by other countries to set up a national lottery in this country. The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 does not permit a national lottery and other countries cannot escape that. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office on 8 July:
There are no measures in the single market programme at present specifically relating to lotteries and, in their absence, the controls which United Kingdom law places on lotteries would not appear to be affected."—[Official Report, 8 July 1988: Vol. 136, c. 765.]

Mr. Burns: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point, but does she not accept that, although European countries could not set up a national lottery in this country, after 1992 there would be nothing to stop them selling tickets in this country for their own lotteries back home in France, Germany or Spain?

Mrs. Currie: As I said a few moments ago, that is a policy matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I understand that it is not legal to sell such lottery tickets and that no change of the law is proposed in 1992. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall ensure that my colleagues in the Home Office have their attention drawn to this point. They will be able to give him a more substantive answer than I can.
In the debate on the report of the Royal Commission on 29 October, most of those who spoke were firmly against the idea of a national lottery because of the difficulties that they mentioned of control and bureaucracy and especially because it would take money away from local voluntary effort. Although attitudes have shifted somewhat, those remain our concerns.
There is a genuine fear that money might be diverted from the existing fund-raising effort for local good causes. The Health Services Act 1980 gave health authorities the power to raise money locally, but its provisions did not extend to local lotteries. In 1986–87, the most recent year for which I have figures, the fund-raising activities by the health authorities generated about £3 million, but that was only a small proportion of all their charitable income, which totals nearly £117 million, much of it from legacies and other such sources.
Large sums of money can be, and are being, raised for health care through fund-raising activities and there is no doubt that the success of one-off appeals for funds—for example, the Great Ormond street appeal, which is proving to be very successful—or by national charities is to be commended and welcomed. But that is no indication of how successful a national lottery might be, whether it was organised by the Government or, as my hon. Friend wisely suggested, by some outside body.
Charitable appeals seek unconditional donations and may be only an annual event or, as in the case of Great Ormond street, an event of a generation. A national lottery would be much more frequent, would have to run for a number of years, and would appeal mainly to gambling motives. We are genuinely concerned about the effect that a national lottery would have on many voluntary and charitable groups who do much good work to raise money locally for NHS hospitals.
These people work to low overheads and are mostly volunteers. By choosing a specific fund-raising target, such as the purchase of an advanced piece of equipment, they attract considerable support from the local community. We would not want to see that support undermined by some counteraction, such as a national lottery with its conversely small net return.
I suspect that my hon. Friend's letter dated 30 March 1988 to the present Secretary of State for Social Security recognised this problem, for he wrote saying that
such a measure …would help to harness the existing local charitable fund-raising activities".
I am not sure what he thought he meant by "harness", but there is at least a slight suspicion that it might mean "compete" or "detract from." One must be aware that that danger would need to be dealt with.
The other side of the issue is that some money could possibly be diverted from other forms of gambling, such as betting or bingo. That may be regarded as a thoroughly desirable change, but the NHS and national Exchequer do rather well out of the tax revenue from gambling; in Britain in 1986–87 it amounted to almost £800 million. The pools alone yield about £250 million in tax a year. A switch


in gambling habits to support a national lottery could cause the Government to lose as much or more in taxation as it might receive from a lottery.
Some careful calculations on this have been done and they show that the lottery would not be starting from scratch. We are already getting a great deal of money from the gambling habits of the British people and we would be wary of challenging that behaviour in too dramatic or drastic a way for fear that we might end up losing more than we gained.
We feel that these fears are genuine. For example, an article in The Economist of 9 July 1988 pointed out that bingo clubs felt that they had suffered badly from the introduction of newspaper bingo. Meanwhile, in Spain the national lottery suffered when the gambling laws there were liberalised. That too was pointed out in an article published on 16 January 1988 in The Economist, which seems to take a close interest in these issues. I notice that some of the reforms in Spain did not turn out to be quite what the Spanish Government intended.
The Spanish spend about £13 billion a year on gambling, half of which goes through slot machines. Recently they have tried to reform some of their lottery legislation. For example, says the article, they have a
normal diet of three lotteries a week. One of these is the Primitivo, introduced by the Government three years ago as a supposedly simpler and easier-to-play lottery. However, Mr. Carlos Solchaga"—
my opposite number there—
the economy minister, recently admitted on national radio that he did not know how to fill in a Primitivo lottery form.
So it could not have been quite that easy. The Catalonian Government started two lotteries of their own last year and intend to use some of the money to help finance the Barcelona Olympic games in 1992.
They found in Spain on the restoration of democracy in 1977 that the liberalised gambling laws presented gamblers with a feast of choices, and one result was that the lottery income was damaged. If it works one way, we suspect that it might work the other way as well and that if one were to promote lotteries heavily some of the other income which we already get from other forms of gambling might be

damaged. I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would be unwilling to forgo much of the £800 million currently raised from such sources.
We have said many times, and we remain of the view, that we wish to encourage the long-standing tradition of charitable support for the National Health Service. Such support is often aimed at specific goals such as research into or treatment of particular conditions or the provision of improved facilities or new equipment for a particular hospital, and such effort is extremely effective. In that sense, therefore, we should. recognise that the money currently coming in from gambling is already being spent on kidney machines, CAT scanners, parents' accommodation and so on, but we would always encourage and wish to benefit from the enthusiasm, interest and inspiration of local people who wish to express their appreciation of the work of the Health Service by raising money locally. I have been involved in such activities both as a local citizen and as chairman of a health authority and it is very valuable indeed. I often wish that those who object to such activities realised how much personal satisfaction the people involved obtain. It often helps bereaved people to express their appreciation and assuage their grief in this entirely laudable way. We must also take into account the fact that by its very nature income from lotteries is unpredictable and thus not always conducive to the system of longer-term service planning that we are trying to improve in the National Health Service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford wrote to my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Social Security asking for lotteries to be considered as part of the review of the National Health Service. He should be aware that lotteries are being discussed rather more broadly by colleagues and if there is anything new to be said about our views it will be said in due course.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject today and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East for setting out once again his thoughtful views on care in the community for people with mental handicap. We shall take the views expressed by both my hon. Friends very seriously and will hope to make progress.

Orders of the Day — Royal Naval Armaments Depots (Milford Haven and Trecwn)

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I rise to speak on a matter of great concern to my constituency and to many people in the adjoining constituency of Ceredigion and Pembroke, North—the future of the two Royal Naval armaments depots at Milford Haven and Trecwn. The debate is of great importance to my constituents because the Milford depot in my constituency is one of the largest employers in the area. It is thus a matter of vital concern that the future of the depot should be resolved as quickly as possible so that we know where we are going in terms of employment in the area.
I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who is present at this ungodly hour of the morning and who, throughout all the discussions that I have had with the Ministry, has shown great courtesy and concern about the future of the two depots. He visited both depots about two months ago, and all the employees there are grateful for his promise to have further meetings with them now that the report has been published.
I pay tribute to the work of the two depots. Their work for national defence since 1939 has been invaluable and their work at very short notice in stocking the task force for the Falklands campaign should be on record for people in the town to note.
I also pay tribute to the staff of the Milford depot, whom I know quite well, and in particular to three gentlemen who have been leaders of the work force—Peter Sizer, chairman of the joint union action committee who took over from George Noden, the previous chairman, and the local official of the Transport and General Workers Union, Mr. Danny Fellowes. I hope that it will not be the kiss of death for Mr. Fellowes' career in the TGWU when I say that he has acted in a most responsible and intelligent way throughout all the discussions about the future of the depot. He is representing the men in an exemplary manner. He has been giving them invaluable advice on the best course of action that they should take.
The report has been awaited for a considerable time. In a letter to me on 20 July 1987, shortly after I was elected the Member for Pembroke, my hon. Friend the Minister said that he hoped that the unclassified consultative document would be issued later in the year. That statement was repeated to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) in a letter of 3 September from the Ministry of Defence. Yet we had to wait until July of this year for a report which was commissioned in 1986, a report which has been eagerly awaited by the people of Milford Haven.
What do we get? We have a seven-page, double-space typescript, which could have been written during a day. I accept, of course, that the research would have taken longer than that. It has taken the gestation period of an elephant to produce a mouse. The report leaves unanswered far more questions than it attempts to answer. It is somewhat surprising that it has taken so long to produce a report that lacks so much detail. I have made numerous attempts to raise the matter by tabling

questions. I have raised the matter twice in debates. The first occasion was on 28 October 1987 during the Defence Estimates debate, when I said:
I appreciate that any inquiry or review into the future of those depots must start from the position of their importance to the future defence of the country. It is important that there is a role for the mine depot—ensuring that we have conventional mines for the Royal Navy for use in our waters for defensive purposes.—[Official Report, 28 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 368.]
I asked my hon Friend the Minister to take into account also the important social and economic consequences for the depot and the town of Milford Haven. The town has 30 per cent. unemployment. If the depot were to close, or to be transferred, the effect on the town would be dramatic.
I raised the matter again during the St. David's day debate on 2 March. I said then that there was considerable concern in Milford Haven about the depot, which employs nearly 300 people. I explained that there was great concern about the future of the depot and that I hoped there would be an early decision. Having seen the report, I am none the wiser about what the Ministry of Defence hopes will stem from its publication.
I return to the background in 1986, when the report was commissioned. The study for the Ministry of Defence was at that time to be conducted by a Mr. John Glover, an official of the Royal Naval Supply Transport Service, which manages the depot. The terms were as follows:
(a) to review the current and future tasks, organisation and staffing of the RN Armament depots at Trecwn and Milford Haven and to determine how the depots' tasks can be achieved most economically and effectively.
(b) to consider the implications of any changes that may be necessary, and to recommend how they should be achieved and over what time scale.
The foreword added:
The study will need to cover the possibility of concentrating tasks at Trecwn and reducing or closing facilities at Milford Haven, but other options will also be fully examined and there can be no foregone conclusions about the outcome. Ministers will of course take the eventual decision on the basis of all relevant factors.
I suggest that one of the most important things that needs to be taken into account is the impact on local employment at Milford Haven. A report issued by the local authority's steering committee in November 1986 observes that the majority of employees at the Milford Haven depot live within the former jobcentre area. The benefits from employment are localised, and if the depot were to close there would be the worst possible scenario.
The local area of Milford will feel the brunt of closure. When I asked how many are employed at Milford—a figure that I thought would have been in the report, but is not—I was told that the information was not yet available and would be supplied later. I must therefore fall back on the figures given in the local authority's report, which showed that, of the then 285 people employed at the depot, 231, or 81 per cent., lived in Milford Haven itself. The implications for Milford Haven are therefore very important. The report points out that the jobs are predominantly male jobs, and will be difficult to replace. A high proportion of them are skilled and professional posts. The depot provides a higher-than-average local wage level, and work for registered handicapped people would probably be almost impossible to find elsewhere in the area.
There are implications not only for the work force but for the town. We must consider the wider effects of the


amount spent by the depot and by the work force in the surrounding area. The local authority's report calculates that the average annual amount spent directly by the Ministry of Defence is £270,000, which includes £63,490 commercial expenditure and £206,000 spent on utilities. The PSA annual expenditure on Milford and Trecwn combined is estimated at £1·9 million.
The signs of the multiplier effect—the effect of a pound earned by the employees in the depot on the economy of Milford Haven—are impossible to calculate exactly, although evidence from various studies suggests that the local multiplier could be of the order of 1·15 to 1·3. That implies that another 85 jobs could be dependent on the Milford depot, and makes clear its importance to the local economy.
On 17 November last year I asked the Secretary of State for Defence:
what estimates have been made by his Department of the economic impact of the location of its establishments on United Kingdom regional policy; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), said:
Whilst we aim to secure a more even spread of defence employment across the regions, decisions on all proposals affecting the future of defence establishments must be made on their own economic and operational merits."—[Official Report, 17 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 464–65.]
I entirely agree with that sentiment, but I believe that, given the concentration of Government employment in the south-east and the desire of all Ministers to spread the impact of Government jobs to the rest of the country, the effects on the area of closing the depot ought to be considered in that light.
The importance of defence establishments to the county of Dyfed, in which Milford Haven is situated, is clear from the figures given in a parliamentary answer on the same day as the one to which I have just referred. At the last count, 2,209 civilian personnel and 831 service personnel were employed by the Ministry of Defence in the county of Dyfed. I hope that the Ministry will pay great attention to the importance of ensuring that, if the depot has to close in its present form, every effort is made to, consider whether some other form of defence establishment can be established on the site.
I said a few minutes ago—when I quoted from a speech that I made on 28 October last year—that I believed that the depot must justify itself on defence grounds. I see no reason to retract that statement. I have made my view clear to the work force, to my local press and during the last election. It is important to recognise that the Ministry of Defence faces a difficult decision. It is not a job-creation scheme; it is the defence of the country. Therefore, it must ensure that whatever it does is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Government for its role.
I recognise that the role of the Milford depot, as now constituted, is coming to an end, and that it would therefore be unrealistic for the work force to argue for the status quo. The work force recognises that. However, that does not mean that we should simply fold up our tents and creep away. I believe that there is plenty of opportunity for the depot to be used for other MOD purposes.
A recent article in the Western Mail announced:
The Property Services Agency Wales has been asked to investigate sites which could bring the Royal Navy's Sea Systems Controllerate under one roof.
That would employ 4,500 personnel.
I am not suggesting that Milford Haven is the right location for that establishment, but it does have a deep-water port facility and I can think of worse places for it to be located. If that establishment cannot come to Milford Haven, the MOD should consider carefully what other naval establishments could be suitably transferred. If there is nothing for the Royal Navy at Milford Haven, a possible site for the other armed forces could be considered.
Before the future of the depot is signed and sealed, we must consider whether the MOD's traditional use of it can continue. If that is not possible, we must consider the employment implications.
The MOD report is feeble. As I have already said, it has had the gestation period for an elephant, but a mouse has been produced. The local authorities have been able to produce an 18-page, closely argued report, with a number of appendices, within a few months. Therefore, I am amazed that, after two years, the MOD has produced a double-space typescript of only seven pages. It has failed to address the main issues that are of concern to the employees and the local people. The report contains no detail of the work force—grading structure, age and sex profile, salary structure, and length of service of individual employees. The local authorities and the unions need to have that information so that sensible decisions can be made about the depot's future.
If the depot is closed, the report states that between 40 and 50 or 80 and 90 staff could be transferred. That demonstrates that the report is vague and wishy-washy. There is no information about whether those who transfer will be given free transport, which was provided for those who were forced to move to Carmarthen when local government was reorganised in 1974. The staff are asking about such matters and they deserve answers.
Little information is given about the possible redundancy package. I put down a written question about what constitutes the normal redundancy package at. the Ministry of Defence. That question was answered today and I received some additional information, but the staff, their families, the unions and the local authorities should have had such information made available in that report.
The report gives no information about the possible future use of the site. One of the main anxieties in the town is that the site is reputed to have explosives impregnated in the ground. Before that site is used for any other purpose it must be cleaned. In a written answer, the Minister informed me:
The estimated cost of (a) certifying RNAD Milford Haven free from explosives is estimated at between £500,000 and £1 million.
The absence of those figures from the report is a glaring omission. The author of the report did not set out to answer the questions that the local people needed to have answered.
An apprentice training school is based just outside the main gates of the depot. We have been told that it could be unaffected by the closure of the depot. Will it be a viable training school if it is so far from any other RNAD complex? It is a long way to Trecwn when one is 17 or 18 years of age and without personal transport. Will it have a viable future as an MOD apprentice school, or should it become a general engineering school for the area? Should it continue to be run by the MOD, or would it be better run by the Training Commission and the local authorities? Those questions have not been answered by the report, or


even by the questions put forward and flagged. I recognise that it is a consultative report, but for consultation to take place the report needs to convey meaningful information so that the staff and the unions can discuss what should be done next.
No information has been provided about other uses for the site, apart from use by the Ministry of Defence. How many other people have expressed an interest? What package will be made available should the site have to be closed to ensure that it is used for the benefit of employment in the Milford Haven area? That question is not answered.
I very much welcome the reply to one question that has been answered. The people who live in Ministry of Defence houses, now owned by the PSA, welcome the fact that they may now purchase those houses under the right-to-buy legislation. I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance on that point, and the ending of the uncertainty that has lasted for a considerable time.
I turn briefly to the Trecwn depot. I have concentrated most of my speech on Milford Haven because it is in my constituency. The Trecwn depot is half a mile outside my constituency, but the last count of employees in October 1986, provided by the local authority's joint committee, revealed that 46·5 per cent. were constituents of mine. Therefore, whatever happens to Trecwn is important to the people of Pembrokeshire, because it will have an impact on the local economy.
I am very disappointed that after two years the report leaves the question of Trecwn in the air. Paragraph 14 of the report states:
The reduction of the mining support task will also have a substantial effect on the loading of Trecwn. This will be the subject of further study by the Ministry of Defence. These studies will include an examination whether other MOD tasks can be put to the depot. The outcome of this further work will not be known until 1989.
I wonder why the MOD works at snail's pace when it comes to examining what it will do for the future of the depots. We waited two years for the report, and now we are told that we need another report, another study, on the future of Trecwn, which will take another year. I hope that it is a little more informative than the report which was published earlier this week.
Finally, what will happen to the site should it be decided that there is no future for the depot in the Ministry of Defence and it becomes available for commercial use by private enterprise or by other Departments? An urgent meeting should be held between the Ministry of Defence and the Welsh Office to ensure that that prime site of 260 acres, situated on the shores of the River Cladeau on the Haven, should be brought into use for other commercial undertakings if the Ministry of Defence does not want it. That should be done as quickly as possible. I have always made it clear that if the decision is taken to close the depot, it should not be death by 1,000 cuts over a long time. The closure of the depot should be fast, the site should be cleaned up and prepared for other uses, and there should be early advertising of the site for other enterprises.
The Welsh Office should consider whether it has any uses for the site which would create employment and whether any other Government Departments which are

decentralising from London have any uses for the site. If that is not the case, we have to ensure that the site is made available for private enterprise.
Yesterday's Western Mail states that workers at the depot have asked whether the MOD would make a gift of it to the town. That is highly unlikely. I am not sure that it would be right for the local authority to take over the site. It is not terribly experienced in running commercial undertakings or sites of that size. Of course the Welsh Development Agency would be the right body to take over the site and prepare it for business occupation after the MOD has cleaned it up. I do not say that it is the Welsh Development Agency's job to pay for cleaning up the site. That is an MOD responsibility. The Pembrokeshire business initiative could, with the WDA, help to identify possible uses for the site and attract employers to it.
I finish on that positive note because I believe I should follow the example of the work force at Milford Haven, which has recognised the reality that the depot will not continue as a mine depot. It recognises that mine warfare and defence strategy have changed. The MOD must recognise that realism and reward the loyal service of the work force and the dedication of the people of Milford Haven to the depot since 1939. The MOD should ensure that, if the site is closed as an MOD depot, it will be made available for the future employment and prosperity of the people of the area.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who has the next debate, has not arrived yet, so perhaps we should continue this one for a while.
I listened to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) with great interest. I thought at one point that he might have been converted to the views of the Opposition, but towards the end he covered his bets with the Conservative side. What he faces is something of great difficulty and concern for any hon. Member: the closure of a works, factory or—as in this case—depot, with the consequent unemployment. Many Opposition Members who represent industrial areas have had to face this problem often under this Government. I only wish that the hon. Member for Pembroke was as forthcoming in his support for other areas as he is for his own.
Because Opposition Members have faced this problem so often, I want to speak in support of the depot, and I hope that the Government will change their mind about it. The area faces certain difficulties with employment. It is on the periphery of the European Community—that is one strike against it. Secondly, it is surrounded by a mainly rural area, so the development of service industries there will be extremely difficult. It cannot act as a nucleus for warehousing, so it will find it difficult to attract jobs. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, the people of these communities have given a great deal of service to the country in war and peace and they deserve better than to be summarily dismissed.
The hon. Member for Pembroke talked of dispersing MOD jobs. I noted with interest that that happened this week, with the dispersal of jobs to Llangennech, near Llanelli, and the people there are grateful. However, I warn the hon. Gentleman that the MOD's history of dispersal is not good. Some years ago it undertook to


disperse jobs to Glasgow. We found that jobs were leaving the south-east and going as far afield as Gloucester and a little north of London. Then those jobs shuffled up as far as Manchester, and by the time the ripples of the dispersal reached Glasgow there was little advantage to be had from the process. As a positive scheme, it was a disaster. That was recognised in a report of the Public Accounts Committee, which I think was published about two years ago. If I were the hon. Member for Pembroke, I would not rely too much on the Ministry of Defence dispersing jobs to replace those that are being lost.
The hon. Member for Pembroke tried to change horses or face all ways in relation to local authorities. It was gratifying to hear him extol the virtues of local authorities. The hon. Gentleman praised the local authority's report, and I am sure that his praise will be received by the local authority with satisfaction. His damning indictment of its ability to run a small industrial site will not be so well received. I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman said that local authorities could do anything. On numerous occasions in debates over the past couple of years and on the Widdicombe report on the organisation of local government, Conservative Members have criticised local authorities for taking initiatives.
The report that the hon. Gentleman praised could be illegal, if any political comment is made in it, under the new rules that the Government are introducing. I hope that when we debate the rules and regulations the hon. Gentleman will have the courage of his convictions and condemn the Government for trying to strangle local authorities and prevent them from carrying out their duty to protect local communities.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to prolong the debate until his hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) turns up, and that he knows little about the subject and has not seen the local authority's report. The authority has made an excellent report that is not political but neutral and unbiased and deals with the problems facing the area.

Mr. Rogers: That shows the political naivety of the hon. Gentleman. If a report that deals with an institution that provides jobs and bread to the community is not political, what is? The hon. Gentleman showed his bigotry and prejudice. He believes that all matters must be party political, and that was the view of the Government when they reorganised local government. The recommendations of the Widdicombe report were based on the sort of prejudices that the hon. Gentleman has just shown.
The local authority has done a good job, but it would be illegal under the new rules that the Government have introduced. If a local authority fights for jobs in a community, the Government say, "You cannot do that because you are criticising Government policy and it is political." Throughout the country, Labour authorities —they are the only authorities fighting for jobs in their communities, unless a Conservative Member such as the hon. Member for Pembroke is affected by a proposal—are condemned for fighting for jobs in their communities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the courage of his convictions and will support our opposition to the Governments proposals. It is perfectly understandable —I speak from the arrogance of a large majority—that the hon. Gentleman wants to cover his back on this electoral issue. That is what it will be. The hon. Gentleman's

constituents will be looking not at what he did but at what the Government did to jobs in the area when they vote in the next election.
The hon. Gentleman is not alone in his inconsistency. We have seen it time and again among Conservative Members. They talk about market forces and letting the market economy operate. However, when that affects their constituency it is a different story. In the previous Session some Conservative Members complained bitterly about the dumping of nuclear waste. However, they would vote for the Government in their nuclear energy development policy. I will tell the hon. Member for Pembroke what I told them then one cannot have it both ways. If one supports a nuclear industry, one has to be prepared to be the recipient of the waste from that industry. Significant Members of the Government fought hard against having a nuclear dumping ground in their constituencies.
The hon. Member for Pembroke asked the MOD not to fold up its tent and creep away. It will fold up its tent, and I am afraid that the local authority, in conjunction with the Welsh Development Agency, will have to fight for it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the MOD should take the responsibility for clearing up the site. Many pits have been closed in the south Wales valleys and for a considerable number of years the sites were left derelict and were an eyesore. It is a tribute to Governments of all persuasions that they have developed, particularly over the past 15 years, extensive land clearance schemes that have restored areas to the community for housing, recreation or industrial development. I urge the Minister to pay attention to that point and follow the advice given to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke. If the MOD quits the site, it should clean it up and leave it in a decent condition so that it can be used for other purposes. I have more confidence in the local authority than the hon. Member for Pembroke. The local authority should be the agency to develop the site.
Mention was made of the apprentice training school related to the site. Naturally the hon. Member for Pembroke is worried about the future of youth training in his area. It is a serious problem because, throughout south Wales and the rest of the country, the Government have been closing down skill training centres and depriving young people of the opportunity of becoming skilled. It is a real problem and I shall give an example to the hon. Gentleman.
One county council area in south Wales was looking at where it should place the new schemes for next year. In that county there were bids for 77,000 places. The resources available will allow the county to develop only 8,000 places. That area is not far from that represented by the hon. Member for Pembroke. I have little hope that he will be able to obtain support for the development of the apprentice training school or that the Training Commission will put any substantial effort into it.
I advise the Minister that he may have closed the depot, but he has a responsibility. He cannot pack up his tent and walk away; he should invest by clearing the site and ensuring that it is handed over in a fit and proper state for use by the local community.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for


Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on securing this debate. I know that for him, his constituents and other hon. Members, this is an important issue. He has demonstrated great persistence and great energy and courtesy in representing the interests of his constituents in this matter. I have visited the site with him and met some of his constituents. I have corresponded with him for a considerable time and we are now joined in debate. Doubtless this will not be the last time that we have the opportunity to debate this matter.
Before I reply in detail to the points that my hon. Friend has raised it might be helpful if I were to remind the House of the main facts of this issue. The House will be aware that on 25 July the Ministry of Defence published a consultative document, which recommended that the Royal Naval armaments depot at Milford Haven be closed. At this stage I should like to deal with what may be a misconception in my hon. Friend's mind about the consultative document. It is not a report. It is not a document that purports to be a comprehensive study of the problem—that is a separate document, which is classified, and which we have in the Ministry of Defence. The consultative document is a brief summary. I believe that my hon. Friend referred to it as being seven pages long. I apologise for its brevity if my hon. Friend believes that it shortchanges him and a number of his constituents on some matters. I shall attempt to answer some of his points.
It is important that we appreciate the purpose of the consultative document. The procedure is as follows. When I come to consider the closure of a particular base, garrison or depot, a report is commissioned internally in the Ministry of Defence. The issue is considered properly and thoroughly. Indeed, the criticism is often made that we take far too long to study the problem. I believe that when one is dealing with the future of loyal work people, who have spent a considerable period of time in a particular locality, it is important that the study should be comprehensive, factual, free of prejudice and emotion, and that, after consultation with other Government Departments, it should present the facts as fairly as possible.
I make no apology for the fact that sometimes those studies take what may seem an inordinately long time. That is perfectly understandable and defensible. I would much rather get all the facts right, and have all the facts, than get half a story, sometimes tinged with emotion.

Mr. Rogers: Why does the consultative document need to be classified? I can understand that there might be a section dealing with the grand strategy of the defence of this country—that might be in the first two paragraphs —and that that could be classified. However, we are talking about an industrial issue and I cannot see why the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) should not at least see the document. I do not see why the document should be classified.

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that the consultative document is not classified. It is a seven-page document which was produced specifically for the trade unions. The report, which is something separate, and which runs to several hundred pages, is a classified document. It is classified for the simple reason that we are dealing with the technology of making,

distributing and laying sea mines for the Royal Navy. Therefore, for obvious reasons, the document must be classified.
The consultative document is produced for consultation with the trade unions, so that they understand what recommendations and proposals have been made to me or to the relevant Minister for the future of the depot.
The consultative document is not a sales document. It does not offer alternative uses for the site. It does not spell out redundancy terms; nor does it describe the real estate. It is a brief statement, stating that the recommendation is to close the depot. It sets out the main reasons for that and explains that we should like to enter into a brief period of consultation with the trade unions, to ensure that we have the facts right, and to take into account any other factors. Only after that will a decision be taken. Once the decision is made—and it has not yet been made in this case—what my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke wants will be produced. The welter of detail about the future and welfare of the work force, and full details about the real estate involved, will be available for distribution and discussion in the Ministry of Defence, and with our allies and perhaps with other Government Departments and the private sector.
I hope that my hon. Friend will draw a distinction between the report and the consultative document.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I appreciate the difference between the wider 200-page report to which my hon. Friend referred, with its defence implications and classified nature, and the consultative document, but does he agree that perhaps the MOD should reconsider what it produces as a draft consultative document, bearing in mind the importance of all the closures and decisions, not just for the work force and the unions—which may be well informed—but for the local authorities that will have to consider the matter, the Member of Parliament in this case, and anyone else in the area who is concerned about the future? In the next few months we are to be asked to consult and discuss a matter about which there is very little information. The information will not be of much use to us if we get it after the decision has been taken.

Mr. Freeman: I understand the point made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). My hon. Friend has made a valid point, which I accept. When we prepare the next consultative document in the next case I shall look at the extent of the information included. If it would be more helpful to the work force and local authorities to have more information at an early stage, I shall bear that in mind.
The consultative document that we are discussing gives the work force, the trade unions and local authorities two months in which to comment in principle on the proposal. We are seeking a reaction to our decision on the future of the depot. Only when I have had a chance to consider the replies will I be able to make a final decision about the future of the depot. We are not talking about the imminent closure of the depot at Milford Haven. That may be two or three years away. We are embarking upon a consultation process—albeit a fairly brief one. The MOD is committed to ensuring that the process is frank and open. I have already told the work force that I am prepared to meet a delegation, should the workers so wish. I made that promise when I visited Milford Haven and I am happy to repeat the assurance to my hon. Friend.
The Royal Naval armaments depot at Milford Haven was built in 1939 to wartime emergency standards and covers about 260 acres. The depot's principal tasks in recent years have been the storage and maintenance of exercise mines, the updating of high explosive mines, the upkeep of what is called replenishment at sea gear, the repair and maintenance of motor transport and the training of apprentices. At present there are 285 employees.
As the result of long-term changes in mine technology and mining policy the size of the task performed at Milford Haven has been considerably reduced in recent years. If the depot were closed and the tasks transferred, capital expenditure of about £500 million would be necessary to provide new buildings elsewhere. The costs for extra staff at the new location, or locations, would amount to about £500 million per annum, or between 40 and 90 posts. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke chastised me for not being precise about the number of new jobs that would be created elsewhere. Perhaps we are being unduly cautious, but it would be foolish to be too precise at this stage, when work still has to be undertaken.
Given that the operating costs of Milford Haven are £3·6 million per annum, the House will readily understand why, in our view, there is a persuasive argument in favour of closing the depot. It gives me no pleasure to announce the possible closure of one of our establishments, but the Ministry of Defence has an obligation to obtain the best value for money for the taxpayer within the defence budget. The task for which the depot was built has substantially declined, and there is no longer a defence requirement for it to remain open. We cannot ignore the reality of the situation, however grateful we are for the loyal service rendered by the work force in both peace and war.
The news for west Wales is not all bad. On 25 July I announced that up to 250 jobs were likely to be created as a result of the transfer to Llangennech of the forms and publications stores of the three services, which we hope will take place early in 1991. In addition, we are examining the possibility of moving some other complementary activities to Llangennech, absorbing more of the depot capacity and creating additional local employment. That is evidence of our determination to make use of our assets, if at all possible, by moving other activities and departments within the Ministry of Defence.
The consultative document is merely a short summary of the outcome of the Trecwn district study. The Trecwn district includes both the Trecwn and Milford Haven depots. The original report cannot be published, because it is classified. The consultative document is not intended to provide all the answers to the questions that the work force or their representatives may wish to raise. It is designed to form the basis for consultation. My officials will do their best to reply to the questions that arise during the consultation process.
There have been criticisms of the length of time taken to publish the consultative document. As I have said, we are dealing with a highly complex subject—the future of the United Kingdom's mining policy and the storage capacity necessary to meet it. Last year it was necessary for all the Ministry of Defence branches to give full consideration to the implications of the Trecwn district study. We consulted the Welsh Office about the future of Milford Haven, and we shall consult it, too, about the future of Trecwn. I regret the time that all that has taken,

but to have proceeded more speedily would not have been in the interests of either the Ministry of Defence or the work force.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke is unhappy because the consultative document does not say what other defence uses were considered for the depot. The depot's facilities have serious shortcomings and its layout no longer meets stringent explosive safety prescriptions. Therefore, it is not an option to continue to use it efficiently as an explosives depot, and we have been unable to identify any non-explosive, Navy task that could be transferred there. The Army and Air Force departments have said that they have no need for any of the Navy's surplus storage space. If that changes, and a defence use for Milford Haven is identified, I shall inform my hon. Friend and the House as soon as possible.
The possible use of the site by other Government Departments will be fully assessed if and when I take the final decision to close the depot, and the closure process will take three years. If no further use is found for the site, our normal procedure will be to offer it for sale on the open market. In reaching a decision about disposal I shall ensure that there is full consultation with the normal authorities, the Welsh Office and its agencies. I assure my hon. Friend that any disposal procedure will be pursued with vigour and with the objective of ensuring that the site is not left idle.
My hon. Friend asked for some detailed information about the number of staff who might transfer to Trecwn and about a possible redundancy package. Yesterday I answered a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend giving him information about the Ministry of Defence's standard redundancy terms. It is impossible at this stage to be precise about how many staff could or would transfer if the depot were closed. That will emerge during the consultation process.
As for the cost of certifying the site free from explosives and removing all existing buildings, the former would cost between £0·5 million and £1 million, and if the site leaves the ownership of the Ministry of Defence, I give the assurance that that will be done. Consideration of the removal and demolition of the buildings is an integral part of the disposal process. We shall consider what needs to be done when we examine other uses.
The Ministry of Defence has no plans to close the apprentice training school. I am glad to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I shall ask my officials to consider his suggestion about widening the scope of training there. In the event of the depot being closed, sitting tenants of Ministry houses will be given an opportunity to buy them on favourable terms.
My hon. Friend's disappointment over the further study on Trecwn is understandable, but the proposal to close Milford Haven means that the residual task still performed there will have to be transferred somewhere. Trecwn is certainly the favoured option.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend consider providing transport for the transferred staff?

Mr. Freeman: I said earlier that between 40 and 90 new jobs would be created at one or other location to which we transferred the remaining tasks performed at Milford Haven. I visited Trecwn shortly after visiting Milford Haven, and I know that the distance between them is not inconsiderable. I shall look into the possibility of assisting


with transport to carry workers who might be offered jobs and accept them at Trecwn but who live at Milford Haven. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me to give any guarantees, but I shall look into the matter.
I shall ensure that the work on the future of Trecwn is undertaken as quickly as possible, but the result cannot be expected before 1989. During Operation Corporate Milford Haven was involved in assisting with the supply of replenishment at sea gear to some Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, while Trecwn provided stocks of naval ammunition to the armaments depots at the base ports. The Government are grateful for the work undertaken by the work force at both depots during the operation, which was in accordance with the high standards of the Royal Navy supply and transport service.
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this brief debate. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend in ensuring that the site, if we close the depot, is used profitably and that the loyal, hard working and efficient work force finds alternative employment.

Orders of the Day — Disarmament

Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Some people have called it a sideways shift following his row with his previous boss on the Housing Bill. If it is, he has done quite well out of it because he has got quite an interesting portfolio. He has a bit of a reputation as a stonewaller. Some people might think that that is appropriate for the Foreign Office, but I have to warn him that there is a spirit of glasnost now, so he might come up against a few problems if he stonewalls. I wish him well in his new job.
One of the Minister's important jobs concerns disarmament, which is the subject of this debate. I recently received a postcard which simply had a picture of the globe. At the top, coming out of the shadow, was an arrow marked, "Them", and in the middle of the globe was another arrow marked, "Us". The legend said:
The Russians, being cunning and devious, hide their country behind the curve in the earth so that we can't see. We, on the other hand, are right out in the open on the flat part.
I am afraid that that has been the cold war attitude of some people in the West. The result has been a disastrous build-up of military spending. It has meant a continuous cold war of the type to which the postcard refers, and an enormous drain on the resources of both sides which could be much better used elsewhere, and it has perpetuated impoverishment in the Third world because while we spend on arms we cannot relieve poverty and suffering there. It has also involved a high risk in terms of the potential destruction of our people, particularly from the nuclear element.
In addition, there has been an increasing risk of accidents. Chernobyl is the prime case, arising from the drive to create more nuclear material, but the Iran Airbus is a more recent example of how accidents can happen. If it is said to be in defence interests to shoot down an Airbus, it may also be in defence interests to fire a nuclear weapon. Those are the consequences of the cold war and the material build-up that we have seen since the war.
Mikhail Gorbachev has attempted to break the logjam, and since he came to office all the initiatives have come from the Soviet Union. As Frank Blackaby, the former director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said, a more liberal-minded, intelligent elite has risen to a position of influence in Soviet politics. The Soviet Union has enormous economic pressures. About 16 per cent. of its GNP is spent on defence, which is immensely crippling and wasteful. That pressure has brought about the initiatives.
NATO has been reacting primarily. It has been intransigent in many respects, especially on short-range nuclear missiles. There was a great chance to get a deal on them, but the Prime Minister in particular would have none of it and that worked its way into NATO philosophy. Moreover, the Government have imposed great pressure to increase militarisation and military spending. That is what modernisation is all about. Only last week during defence questions, when the Secretary of State was asked about burden sharing and the Americans pushing more of the costs of NATO on to European countries, he made it clear that he was acquiescing in more defence spending and Britain picking up a bigger part of the bill. We should


be reducing expenditure when there is an opportunity to do so, not increasing it. NATO has not even produced a comprehensive concept of arms control and disarmament. It has not got its mandate together to go to the negotiating table. That is poor when there is an opportunity to make big reductions.
Recently the Government produced a leaflet entitled "The UK Role in Arms Control a short guide to British Government policy". Short is the right word because there is precious little substance in it. It should have had a photograph of the tea and salmon sandwiches that the Prime Minister gave Mr. Gorbachev at Brize Norton because that is about the biggest contribution that the Government have made to arms control. It even states:
The UK's national deterrent is a minimum force, and it will remain so when the new Trident submarines become operational.
Trident represents an eightfold increase at a time when the super-powers are trying to get rid of some of their weapons in that category. Yet the Government still described that as a minimum force. One can only conclude that the Government use those words as they choose and that in that context "mimimum force" means just what they want it to mean.
The document discusses the Geneva protocol and Britain's role in it back in 1925, as well as new efforts to reach agreement on getting rid of chemical weapons. I pay tribute to the Foreign Office for what it did up to halfway through last year in trying to get an agreement to a chemical weapons ban. Subsequently, however, there has been undue delay and foot-dragging by the Government on this matter. Out come the same old slogans about the Soviet Union's chemical weapons supply, and we are told the Russians have 300,000 tonnes. No justification has ever been given for that and the Soviet Union has said solemnly that it has 50,000 tonnes. Whatever it is, Conservative Members may laugh, but the Soviet Union is keen to get a deal. We should be taking the Russians up on it to ensure that they get rid of chemical weapons.
The foot-dragging has come about because on 16 December the United States resumed its supply of chemical weapons—in particular the new binary and big-eye weapons. It already has enormous stocks even without the new binary systems. According to my information, the United States has over 1 million GB nerve gas artillery rounds, 13,000 GB nerve gas bombs, 300,000 nerve gas artillery rounds and over 1 million mustard gas artillery rounds. They must be in good condition because the West German Government have said that there have been no accidents or leakages in West Germany where they have been stored. The United States ambassador once said that many of the weapons could strike into Soviet territory. The Americans have stocks, although the United States has not published figures. If the Government are pushing for the release of true information from the Soviet Union, they should do the same with the United States; they should ask what its stocks are.
The Foreign Office says that the United States provides information about the composition and location of its stockpile in order to build the confidence needed to underpin a comprehensive ban. Yet the Select Committee on Defence said that the United States had not published the figures to show the size of its chemical stockpile. The Secretary of State for Defence said to that Select Committee:

There is no agreed NATO strategy covering the circumstances in which chemical weapons may be used.
The Committee said:
From the evidence we have received, it seems that the arrangements for moving US chemical weapons to Europe or authorising their release has still not been adequately clarified within the Alliance. Until this is done, chemical retaliation in kind hardly remains a viable option for the Alliance; and a lack of clarity about the procedures involved carries with it other dangers. The urgency for progress to be made in this area remains undiminished.
The Select Committee says that the urgency is undiminished, but the Government have actually slowed down. Now the Secretary of State has said that chemical weapons fall within the flexible response strategy, so he is even contemplating their use.
The Government should get a move on and start getting together with the Soviet Union for a realistic ban on chemical weapons. We should get an agreement and get the United States involved as well.
This foot-dragging has had appalling consequences because we have seen in the middle east, in the Iran-Iraq war, the use of chemical weapons. Unfortunately, the combatants have had some success with these weapons —success in war terms though terrible in human terms —and this will result in other countries wanting chemical weapons and being prepared to use them. That is why we need an immediate global ban on chemical weapons. The British Government do not seem to be aware of the need to take urgent action in this matter.
In terms of conventional arms, there is a chance for agreement to be reached on a degree of disarmament at all levels. Following a meeting of the Warsaw pact on 16 July, the pact renewed its initiative for sizeable cuts in conventional armaments in Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals. It called
for early talks to leave NATO and the Warsaw Treaty countries with forces and systems needed for defence but insufficient for a surprise attack or offensive operations, with a corresponding curtailment in military spending.
Three areas were covered in that initiative. The first was
to achieve equal, lowered levels—roughly equal and balanced collective levels—in troop strength and convention-al weaponry"—
certainly lower than currently exist on both sides—
mutually eliminating imbalances and asymmetries.
That was achieved in INF terms for one category of nuclear weapons, so it could be achieved as well for conventional forces.
The second point was designed to prevent a surprise attack, and it referred to
lowered arms level strips…zones created along the line of contact between the military/political alliance, again ensuring only a defensive capability; and confidence-building measures which would limit military activity in those zones.
It went on to say that there should be a ban on major exercises and restrictions on troop movements.
The third part of the initiative on conventional weapons was for data exchange and verification. That would, naturally, involve the exchange of information on both sides, with on-site inspections and possibly an international verification commission to check that all was working properly.
Those were the main aspects of the initiative—
to strengthen stability and lower the levels of armed forces and armaments, with the principles of equality and equal security being observed and being verified.
I make no apology for quoting at length from that text because it is an important initiative that is now on the


NATO stocks. It has been welcomed—in terms of a pan-European summit—by President Mitterrand, who is reported as having said that
the reduction of conventional arms was an absolute priority which should take precedence over any reinforcement of short or very short-range nuclear weapons.
That was a direct snub to the British Government, who take the opposite view and who do not seem to be interested in that aspect. They seem interested only in increasing that type of short-range weaponry.
The West German Government have welcomed the idea of new talks on lowering conventional arms levels. They have every reason to take that line because, demographically, the numbers in the West German conscript army will be 40 per cent. lower in the coming decade, so they desperately need reductions in convention-al arms.
The British Government do not seem to be worried about the concerns of our allies in this matter. We seem prepared to allow them in the coming 10 years to be in a perilous position, which we have already done in terms of short-range nuclear weapons, a subject to which I will come shortly. So, again, the British Government are foot-dragging. They are among the few Common Market Governments not to have welcomed the idea of a pan-European summit. The block is the weapons with dual capability, conventional and nuclear, which the Government refuse to include in any conventional arms reduction talks. That is what is stopping NATO getting a mandate together and getting realistic talks started. Dual capability weapons should be part of the negotiations. Why should a whole category of weapons not be subject to arms control or even negotiations? In this area, as in any other, asymmetry can apply, with cuts in different types of weapons on each side. If such weapons are not included in conventional arms talks, they should be the subject of separate but simultaneous talks.
The Government must take up those initiatives in a big way. The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), who was recently appointed to a post in Europe, wrote a pamphlet supporting the idea of a demilitarised zone free from tanks, heavy artillery and nuclear weapons. That would create greater stability. Only the Government seem to believe the opposite. At Defence Question Time the Secretary of State spoke ominously of having nothing to do with demilitarised zones, but NATO must take up those initiatives as well as getting rid of all tactical nuclear weapons systems and limiting the total number of heavy battle tanks in Europe. Those initiatives could release money from defence to be used for social purposes.
I shall deal briefly with the nuclear aspects as others may wish to participate and I want to leave plenty of time for the Minister. The INF agreement is to be welcomed, although it represents only about 3 per cent. of the world nuclear stockpile, following a huge build-up of such weapons before the talks, so it is not such an amazing achievement. The Russians have issued a postage stamp commemorating it, and that is about what it amounts to proportionately in terms of the total number of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, it is welcome.
Short-range nuclear weapons should have been included in that agreement. We should have had the triple zero. The West German Government wanted that because

they realise that blowing up part of one's own territory is self-defeating. That should have been taken into account and we shall have to come back to it in future talks. Strategic arms reduction talks are going on for a 50 per cent. cut in strategic weapons, but I do not believe that it will really be 50 per cent. on a strict count. They are already fiddling with the arithmetic so that short-range attack missiles count as only one, and so on. Nevertheless, an agreement would be extremely welcome.
There are two blocks in the way of such a development. The major block is star wars, to which I shall come in a moment, but the other is the sea-launched nuclear weapons. It is shocking that the United Kingdom's Trident and Polaris missiles are not on the negotiating table. In my view, they should be in the negotiations. Sea-launched nuclear weapons could get in the way of strategic arms reduction talks. If they remain uncontrolled —there are now 16,000 weapons at sea—they could destroy a START agreement. They must be brought within the limitation and verification procedures. I appreciate that verification would be difficult, but the Government should insist that the super-powers start talking about sea-launched nuclear weapons and should put their own on the table, as it were.
Star wars—SDI—is a dangerous development. It is a first-strike capability and an enormous continuation of the arms race. It breaches the ABM treaty and it is a block to START. I have heard it said that the Russians are unlikely to agree to START while the star wars development remains in being. That could be the position. At Congress, the office of technical assessement has said that technically SDI is not feasible. It is wrong that the Government should be acquiescing to star wars. They are pursuing every contract that they can get and giving the impression, with the memorandum of understanding, that they are in favour of the project. They should come out against it so that we can secure a START treaty.
The Government seem still to take the view that a limited nuclear war could be fought and won. They are still wedded to the possibility of first use of nuclear weapons. They are still wedded to the modernisation of nuclear weapons when the world wants to see countries getting rid of these weapons. Modernisation would cheat on the INF and on a START.
The Government should be pressing for a comprehensive test ban treaty and a non-proliferation treaty. Unfortunately, the Government are still wedded to nuclear weapons for whatever and for ever. That seems to be their attitude, and that is a block to disarmament. They should wake up to the new world attitude. The peoples of the world are not interested in nuclear weapons and ever-increasing military spending. They are interested in life, health and the progress of mankind. They want more social spending. The Tory Government are a dinosaur. It seems that they are incapable of recognising world opinion. The British public want disarmament. They understand that world-wide agreements are necessary, and they will be angry when they realise that it is the British Government who are blocking these agreements at every turn.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, especially as there is now litte chance that the debate in my name will be


reached. As I can find no way, even with the greatest ingenuinty, of introducing the financing of the University of London into a defence debate, I shall turn to what has been said by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
Before taking up the remarks of the hon. Member for Leyton, I add my congratulations to those that have been offered to my hon. Friend the Minister. I wish him well in his new role, to which I am sure he will bring the distinction that he has brought to other roles in his career in government.
Before the hon. Member for Leyton commenced his oration, if it could be called that, we were all in great suspense waiting for him to wake up and get here. Having listened to his speech, I am still waiting for him to wake up. He appears to have no appreciation of the true state of affairs when it comes to arms negotiations and of who has been giving the lead in arms reductions.
The hon. Gentleman paints NATO as the dragon of the picture. He ignores the unilateral withdrawal of 1,400 warheads, the destruction of the United Kingdom's stocks of chemical weapons, President Reagan's initial zero-zero option, and the long lag before NATO introduced updated weapons to match the Russian SS20s in the form of cruise. None of those actions of restraint met with any reaction of equal restraint from the Soviet Union. Rather, they resulted in an escalation on the part of the Soviet Union. It is very much to the credit of the British Government and, indeed, the United States that they insisted on negotiating from a position of strength, which has brought about the very arms agreements that we have been seeking for so long.
Perhaps it is somewhat unfair to refer to the Soviet Union before the days of Mr. Gorbachev. Perhaps we should now try to look at the Soviets in a rather more trusting light. The position has changed, and we now have the prospect of major arms agreements. That, however, leaves us in a position completely ignored by the hon. Member for Leyton, in which we still face overwhelming conventional superiority on the part of the Soviet Union. We also face the prospect of severe cuts in land-based nuclear missiles.
Because the nuclear missile has always been designed to deter not only a nuclear but a conventional attack, it is doubly important for us to ensure, when reducing our nuclear stockpile and still facing conventional superiority, that we have the most modern and effective weapons in those categories that are still left to us. That is the purpose of the modernisation so derided by the hon. Gentleman. It should be seen not as an escalation, but rather as making effective what we have left and could use.
It is easy to say that we are wedded to first use. We are not, but it would be totally ineffective to set something up as a deterrent and say, "This is what we could use," and then deny that we would use it. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. He is well aware that for a deterrent to be effective a potential enemy must understand that we would actually use it. He is also well aware that nothing that NATO has done has met with much response from the Soviet Union, that the present cuts have been brought about as much from economic pressure within the Soviet Union as from some great enlightenment, that we are still faced with overwhelming conventional superiority and that we are pursuing an enlightened policy of gradual, verifiable and mutual arms reductions. That policy is the surest method of retaining peace, as it has done for the past 40 years.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) both for his kind words and for enabling me to address the House—although not a packed House—on such important matters so early after my new appointment. I am not sure that it is entirely truthful to say that I wished to speak about them first at this time of day, but one must not complain.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that she has answered the debate very thoroughly herself, and she made a number of sensible points, some of which I shall echo.
I could not forbear from a wry internal smile when the hon. Member for Leyton teased NATO for not having got its mandate together. There may be clear mandates in some parts of his party's activities, but it must be said that, in whatever order I read the words in which the leader of his party expresses his mandate, they do not seem any clearer. I have tried the moving interview that he gave to my good friend John Mortimer, but I think that it must have been printed backwards, because it did not seem to make much sense. I had some difficulty in understanding the exact thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's mandate. I found the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton a great deal clearer and I pay tribute to him for that, but it is not a great competition to have won.
Within the first week of my appointment to an extremely important portfolio I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton will not expect me to have sketched out any new directions or to say anything that will surprise him. However, I am grateful to him for allowing me the opportunity to put certain things on the record.
The range of the hon. Gentleman's speech was wide, and he covered the subject comprehensively. I shall try to cover some of that ground. The North Atlantic Council meeting in June 1987 at Reykjavik is a good place to start. At that meeting we and our allies set out our future arms control priorities. We strongly refute the idea that it is the Soviet Union that has set the agenda. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman should agree that it was the West that suggested the zero proposals on INF. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the contribution of the Foreign Office and its efforts to eliminate chemical weapons. The West also took the lead in that respect.
After Reykjavik, the agenda set out for the future meant 50 per cent. cuts in United States and Soviet strategic nuclear weapons, the global elimination of chemical weapons and the elimination of the imbalance in conventional forces in Europe. I shall survey the progress that has been made in each of those areas since last year.
It is worth considering the implications of the word "disarmament", which is the title of the debate. The Government consider that the agenda is about arms control. The Government support balanced and verifiable arms control agreements which are consistent with maintaining our security. We must beware of proposals for wholesale disarmament which see the reduction of weapons as an end in itself. That is not the end. The end is greater security, and that is an important distinction. The Government believe that nuclear weapons will continue to be necessary for the foreseeable future for maintaining deterrence. We take a different view from the hon. Gentleman. We shall continue to support NATO's


policy of keeping only the minimum number of nuclear weapons necessary to achieve that. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone said that the Alliance has reduced its stockpile of nuclear warheads in Europe by 35 per cent. since 1979. However, we must record the fact that there has not been a comparable reduction in the Soviet Union.
Reducing the numbers of our weapons to the minimum necessary is one side of the coin the other side is the requirement to keep them up to date. If they are to provide an effective deterrent, our nuclear weapons must be credible. So we firmly endorse the determination, expressed by NATO Heads of Government at their meeting in Brussels in March, to ensure that all the Alliance's forces, conventional and nuclear, are kept up to date.
Two of the arms control priorities I mentioned earlier related to nuclear weapons. Since Reykjavik, the INF agreement has been finally accepted by the Russians, and the INF treaty entered into force on 1 June 1988. That was a major step. The significance of the treaty and the credit which the achievement of it reflects on the Alliance have been, as my hon. Friend for Maidstone has said, fully discussed in this House on earlier occasions. I need not dwell further on it today.
As the hon. Member for Leyton said, the negotiations between the Americans and the Russians about reductions in their strategic nuclear weapons are continuing in Geneva. The Government warmly endorse the determination shown by the United States Administration to negotiate carefully on the many difficult areas still to be resolved. We are convinced that there should be no question of allowing political time tables to dictate our security requirements. If anyone is tempted to become impatient at what may seem slow progress in Geneva, he should consider—the hon. Gentleman has considered the subject in detail and is similarly aware—how complicated the issues are that are being discussed. The verification regime for a START agreement, for instance, would be far more complicated even than that established under the INF treaty, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. After the two nuclear parities are achieved, the nuclear situation in Europe will have received enough attention for the time being and the spotlight should focus on the conventional and chemical theatres.
Despite our welcome for the hope for the world that the regime of Mr. Gorbachev represents—and I would not underplay that—it is our duty to be careful about the security of our own peoples, and we must be on our guard against any attractively-packaged offers to denuclearise Europe. Whenever attention shifts to conventional forces, the Russians try to divert it back to denuclearisation. We must not let that ploy succeed, and it will not. History has shown that, tragically, even a complete balance of conventional forces has not been enough to guarantee peace.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the shorter-range nuclear forces. NATO is united in rejecting a zero solution on SNF, which would be the third zero. We and our allies are currently engaged in considering what the Alliance's future SNF requirements will be. We are determined to keep our holdings to a minimum—again, in contrast to the

Soviet Union which now has a 14 to one advantage in SNF missile launchers—but we are sure that NATO must retain an effective SNF capability.
Arms control is not just about nuclear weapons. Progress in the nuclear area increases the importance of improving conventional security. Britain and Europe have suffered dreadfully from conventional wars during this century, and modern conventional weapons are many times more destructive than those of 40 years ago. The present concentration of conventional forces in Europe of NATO and of the Warsaw pact comprises the greatest conventional destructive potential ever assembled. That is why we must insist that nuclear arms control must not make Europe safe for conventional war and why we attach so much importance to redressing the imbalances between NATO and Warsaw pact conventional forces.
In Europe, the Warsaw pact has three times as many tanks as NATO, more than three times as much artillery and nearly twice as many tactical aircraft. Furthermore, its forces are configured and deployed in ways which would permit them to initiate a surprise attack and to undertake large-scale offensive action.
That is why the elimination of that imbalance, which so favours the Warsaw pact, is the Government's major arms control priority, now that the INF treaty has been concluded and START negotiations are in train. To that end, we and our allies are discussing with representatives of the Warsaw pact in Vienna the terms of reference for new negotiations on conventional stability which would cover an area from the Atlantic to the Urals. The aim of the negotiations will be to establish a stable and secure balance of conventional forces at lower than the present levels. We shall also seek to eliminate disparities of forces which are prejudicial to stability and security. We want to eliminate the capacity to launch surprise attacks and initiate large-scale offensive action. That is very important. Mr. Gorbachev's proposals of 16 July are a welcome move towards the Western approach. We need more detail, but the proper place for the deployment of the detail is the conventional stability talks.
The Government hope that the negotiations will start during this year. They will take place within the framework of the CSCE process. The outcome of the current CSCE review meeting in Vienna must be balanced. We cannot conclude agreement on that section of the review without progress in other areas, notably in respect of human rights. Hence, our concern to make progress in all the sectors of the review.
I now turn to the hon. Gentleman's comments on chemical weapons. He was generous in saying that, over the years, the British Government have played a real part in the pursuit of a verifiable, comprehensive and global ban on all chemical weapons. We have submitted detailed technical papers to the conference on disarmament in Geneva. Two years ago we chaired the negotiations. Last year my predecessor set out in Geneva the detailed steps that remained to be taken to make the chemical weapons ban effective.
We are both pleased that during the past two years there have been some real signs of progress. The issues are complex, and much effort will be required if we are to develop effective solutions. We seek a convention that will enhance and will be seen to enhance security. To do that, once again there will be a need for reliable verification. I


assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no foot-dragging here. The nearer one gets to a substantive agreement, the more complex things become.
All countries must have confidence in such verification. There is still some way to go, because unless the small print of verification can be seen by all to work in practice countries will not sign an agreement, even if one can be reached. The urgency of achieving a meaningful treaty which we could press others to join is only re-emphasised by recent events of the Gulf war. The negotiations have not, therefore, been a matter only for East and West, as the latest tragic events have shown.
Proliferation underlines the vital need for the convention to be global, yet that raises is own problems. Even the modest provisions of the 1925 Geneva protocol have yet to be universally agreed to. At the United Nations special session in June, my hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary called for renewed impetus to be given to the 1925 protocol. Countries which have not yet signed it—50 in all—should now do so. He called also for prompt international investigation of allegations of the use of chemical weapons. When use had been demonstrated, he said that there should be effective action by the international community. We are working to build on that call.
Openness is crucial. The United Kingdom unilaterally gave up its chemical warfare capability in the 1950s, as the hon. Member for Leyton mentioned. The Soviet Union possesses a substantial chemical weapons capability—but it did not acknowledge that until last year. In fact, no more than three countries admit to possessing chemical weapons. That shows how far there is still to go. If all countries are committed to a ban, as they say they are, why are they so reluctant to come clean? How could we be confident that a ban would work unless there was certainty about what it covered?
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to hear that we have just conducted a significant experiment. In May this year a Soviet delegation visited the United Kingdom chemical defence establishment at Porton Down. There, chemical weapons experts discussed the full range of chemical weapons related activity. Many of these issues were directly related to the work of the conference on disarmament. Other discussions ranged more widely.
At the beginning of this month the Soviet Union reciprocated with an invitation to Britain to visit its chemical plant at Shikhany. We were pleased to have had that opportunity, but it was evident from the exchanges

that attitudes to secrecy remain different in the Soviet Union. Glasnost has not yet reached all the parts of Soviet military thinking.
Many questions and concerns about Soviet capability remain. We have a long way to go in the chemical weapons negotiations. The Government are determined to continue to work energetically for the goal that we have set ourselves over many years. It is important to remember that that goal is a convention with robust verification which adds to our security, not a rushed, skimped exercise that would leave crucial problems unresolved.
A ban that works is a prize for which the world has striven ever since chemical weapons were first invented. The progress that we are making now must not cause us to rush in any way that would let that major prize slip from our grasp.
The hon. Member for Leyton repeated the argument, sometimes advanced, that the SDI breaches the ABM treaty. No doubt he has debated this subject often before and will know that we strongly believe that to be wrong. We think that SDI, as a research programme, is allowed under the ABM treaty. The Soviet Union has admitted that it is conducting similar types of research.
As for modernisation, NATO is not in the business of building up stocks of nuclear weapons for their own sake, but in order to deter, and our deterrent must be modern and known to be effective. A threadbare deterrent is perhaps the most dangerous thing of all.
The hon. Member for Leyton said that all the disarmament initiatives had come from the other side. That is not fair, and it is easy to refute by reference to the list that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. The arms control agenda has been set by the West and by the democracies, as one would expect. The INF zero proposal was made by the West, and Mr. Gorbachev is coming round to our conventional arms approach. The West is taking the lead in conventional arms reductions.
In the short time available, I have been able only to refer briefly to the Government's objectives in arms control, in which traditionally we have played a prominent role and will continue to do so. The problems are often intractable, partly because we are seeking not simply to reduce weapons but to improve security, which is not necessarily the same.

It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — Warehouse Fires

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

8 am

Mr. Terry Fields: I apologise in advance to the Minister if I do not allow him the customary amount of time to reply. My speech is so extensive that I could have done with an hour and a half. I hope that the Minister will understand that I do not expect a detailed reply. I shall give him a document and ask him or his Department to write to me about it.
The specific problems facing the fire service that I want to deal with concern warehousing. Uncharacteristically, perhaps, the only political statement I wish to make is that Britain used to be the workshop of the world, but we are fast becoming the warehouse of the world. The proliferation of warehouses up and down the country is there for all to see.
Warehouses, by the nature of their use, can pose extreme problems in the event of fire for the people working in them, the firefighters attending them and the population living around or working in them. There has been an upsurge in the warehouse industry in recent years. As the growth of imports has risen, so the number of warehouses has similarly increased.
The growth in the warehousing industry has led to an increase in large and costly fires in warehouses, many of which have been extremely costly—often more than £250,000 and, with increasing frequency, they are in the multi-million pound category.
The two fires at the Ministry of Defence establishment at Donnington in Shropshire are conservatively estimated to have cost £265 million. As that loss is borne by the taxpayer, central Government budgets must be cut and savings must be made in other expenditure. Fires in private warehousing mean an increase in insurance costs for all insurance customers. This scenario deals only with direct losses and takes no account of consequential losses, which often can be equal to the direct loss and, in certain circumstances when contracts are lost or default clauses operate, they exceed the direct loss. A company's long-term viability and profitability may also be affected. When foreign goods are lost, effectively imports are doubled, which may be reflected in the balance-of-trade figures.
The Fire Protection Association's figures for the period December 1986 to November 1987, which were published this year in its "Fire Prevention" magazine, show that of more than 250,000 fires, 20 occurred in warehouses totalling a direct loss of £25,269,000. That was 9 per cent. of the total for all fires in that cost bracket and accounted for 11·46 per cent. of total cost figures.
Another article published by the Fire Protection Association in 1985, "The Warehouse Fire Scandal", by Dr. R. B. Ward, showed that, between 1979 and 1984, 11 warehouse fires occurred in the £5 million cost bracket totalling £377 million, a rough average of £34·25 million per fire.
The same article shows that between July 1983 and June 1984 there were 213 fires, approximately 17 per month, in storage premises, which cost the country £137,302,000. In 20 fires in sprinklered warehouses, the cost was £12,981,000, and one fire alone cost £10 million because of

inadequate provision of sprinklers. That means that the remaining 19 fires cost a total of £2,981,000, which is absolute peanuts compared to unsprinklered losses.
I shall deal with five particular fires. I will list them chronologically and explain the lack of control over the warehouse industry in the past decade.
In Braehead container depot in Renfrew on 4 January 1977 there was a fire in a warehouse used for transport and storage. The fire spread to a bonded warehouse and the fire and explosions caused by the storage of commercially pure sodium chlorate destroyed properties and caused widespread damage to domestic, commercial, industrial and public buildings within a one-mile radius. Twelve members of the public and one watchman were treated for shock and minor injuries. Burning debris from the explosion fell on fuel tanks at a nearby power station. Fortunately, they did not ignite. In that instance, no fire safety legislation was applicable on the site.
In February 1980, at the Permaflex company in Stoke-on-Trent, there was a fire and a series of explosions. The fire originated from arcing on a fork-lift truck in an area where flammable gas, LPG—liquefied petroleum gas —was present. The warehouse was used for storing cartridges and aerosols, containing 49 tonnes of LPG. The aerosol and butane fuel containers were exploding and being violently expelled from the building. Local residents and commercial and industrial premises were evacuated. Five hours later the fire seemed to be under control. Then, two massive explosions occurred causing damage to adjacent property. That led to a re-evacuation of the area. The fire burned for a further 60 hours—2·5 days. The local authority concluded that the Fire Precautions Act 1971 did not apply.
A fire at B and R Hauliers in Salford in 1982 involved a warehouse where some 2,000 tonnes of chemicals stored included 25 tonnes of sodium chlorate. Sixty people attended the local hospital after inhaling smoke and fumes and suffering from shock. One person was admitted with breathing difficulties, nine were treated for cuts and lacerations, one for eye injuries and four for nausea and vomiting. Later, 100 people attended the Salford Royal hospital with chest ailments, sore throats and so on. Surrounding properties suffered varying degrees of damage. Several hundred people were evacuated. A cloud of hydrogen chloride—hydrochloric acid—formed around the area but, because of the nature of the premises, the Fire Precautions Act did not apply yet again.
In 1982 there was a fire and explosions in Cary's warehouse in Ipswich. The warehouse stored wickerware, ammonium nitrate fertilisers, compound fertilisers and potassium nitrate. Between 750 and 1,000 people were evacuated from local housing estates, shops, old people's homes and a primary school in an area three quarters of a mile long and half a mile wide. Five people were rescued by firefighters. The explosions were so powerful that they ejected burning materials and lethal sized pieces of corrugated iron and glass into adjoining premises within 100 m of the incident. Again, the Fire Precautions Act did not apply.
In the Brightside lane warehouse in Sheffield in 1984 a fire started in a furniture repository. The repository formed one unit of a large building sub-divided into five smaller units. In two days the fire destroyed the whole warehouse complex with the exception of one unit. That survived due to the effectiveness of fire separation between it and the rest of the complex. The building was not


dissimilar to Braehead and the fire was similar to that which occurred there in 1977. It is obvious from the catalogue of fires I have listed that the lessons have not been learned. The Fire Precautions Act did apply in that case, but only to one of the units which was put to a "designated use".
The risks in all those cases are covered by many pieces of legislation and regulations. There is the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the Building Act 1984, the Fire Certificate (Special Premises) Regulations 1976, the Notification of lnstallations (Handling of Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1982, the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984, the Fire Precautions Act 1971, the Fire Services Act 1947, the Storage of Flammable Liquids Regulations, and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
None of those pieces of legislation had any real effect on the control of what was stored in those premises, nor did they put any responsibility on the owner or occupier to take the course of action which the fire service would demand. For instance, should someone want to develop a new site or redevelop an existing building for warehousing, it seems politic to examine what controls the planners would or would not have over such a development. By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, the Town and Country Planning Act 1984 classifies warehouses as class B8 storage and distribution. That means that if the development of a site is new, planning permission would be required. If, however, the site is an existing one and is already classed as the same usage group, no planning permission is required.
However, nowhere in the planning legislation is there a requirement for the fire authorities to be consulted, nor is the fire authority given any power to act as an objector to a proposal. Hazardous sites which do not fall within the scope of the Health and Safety Executive Regulations 1982 and therefore the 1987 order can gain automatic planning permission where there is no change of use. The Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the 1987 order made by virtue of it have one serious failing. They fail to differentiate between risk, and nowhere more so than where a class B8 building or site is under consideration. In effect, that means that a low fire risk-load warehouse, for example, steel stockholders, can be transformed overnight into a high risk-load premises, for example, for the storage of foam plastics, without any requirement for any form of planning consent and, therefore, no facility for local population objections.
The Building Act 1984 and the regulations made by virtue of it deal with fire safety in two ways. One is life safety in the form of means of escape from fire, and the second is the ability of a building, structure or fabric to resist the effects of fire. I shall deal primarily with the second aspect. Warehouses, for the purpose of the building regulations, are classed in the purpose group identification system as "other non-residential". As with the planning controls, the building regulations fail to differentiate between user risk. The final anomaly with the building regulations is that there is no on-going control so that, as with the planning control, once a building is within a purpose group no account is taken of the risk that the building poses. Therefore, a change of occupier or risk causes no reassessment of the building.
There is no reason to believe that certain warehouses, used purely for the storage of agricultural products—for example, fertilisers—would be exempt from any building

regulation control by virtue of definition as an agricultural building. Bearing in mind that fertilisers have played a significant part in some warehouse fires, that is not a happy scenario. The Fire Certificate (Special Premises) Regulations 1976 also apply to warehouses, but the quantities of hazardous substances to be specified are such that there would almost certainly be an overlap with the next two regulations with which I want to deal.
The first is the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982. It should be noted that these regulations rely on notification being given to the Health and Safety Executive by a premises or site occupier. Of course, in many instances, such people can be shady characters who refuse or neglect to give information to the Health and Safety Executive and, as a consequence, stuff is stored there which should not be there. No controls or regulations cover that.
The second piece of legislation in that category is the Control of Industrial Major Accidents Hazards Regulations 1984, which rely for application on the storage or use of quantities of specified hazardous substances. There are certain areas of overlap so that both sets of regulations may apply simultaneously. In effect, that means that only specific commodities stored in a particular warehouse are covered by the legislation. The legislation would not apply to other goods which could be stored in the warehouses without any controls and as a consequence the warehouses would be a danger to the public and to the fire service.
The fire service prepared the Fire Precautions Act 1971 which is a major piece of legislation. Its main thrust is to provide for life safety for persons within premises to which the Act applies. Two separate premise types have been designated so far. The first covers hotels and boarding houses and the other covers places at work. However, the designated titles serve to deceive because under the heading of "places of work" only premises to which the definitions contained in the Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 are put to what is called a designated use.
The two definitions under the 1961 and the 1963 Acts apply only to certain types of warehouses. There is a range of warehouse types which do not fall neatly into definitions in the Factories Act 1961 or the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. Therefore, while certain provisions in the 1971 Act apply, the main fire safety sections do not simply because the building is not put. to what is called a designated use.
Section 12 of the 1971 Act enables the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to any matter that appears to him to have an effect on fire safety. That power has been exercised only once to make certain regulations relating to fire safety in small places of work which, while they are put to a designated use, because of the small number of persons employed, do not require a fire certificate.
The 1971 Act is at present in the first phase of four-year alteration due to the provisions of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987. It is generally understood that in other areas the status quo could be maintained.
The Fire Services Act 1947 is rather important to firemen, particularly section 1 (1)(d) which gives licence to fire authorities and requires that the fire authority make


efficient arrangements for obtaining, by inspection or otherwise, information required for fire-fighting purposes with respect to the character of the buildings and other property in the area of the fire authority".
However, even with those wide sweeping powers under the 1947 Act, the only restriction is that entry cannot be demanded unless 24-hour notice is given.
To the layman, quoting all this legislation is absolutely meaningless. My point is that there are warehouses that may be covered by specific areas in all the legislation to which I have referred, but without sufficient clarity to give the fire service any confidence that a proper job is being done, looking after the interests of the general public, of fire service personnel, and property in close proximity to some of the buildings that store these dangerous commodities.
There are regulations covering the storage of flammable liquids and the Petroleum (Regulations) Acts of 1928 and 1936 and the Highly Inflammable Liquids and Liquified Petroleum Gas Regulations 1972 apply. However, warehouses that store flammable liquids could fall within the arena of that legislation. However, it should be understood that the regulations are very specific in application and will apply only in certain specified conditions which are fairly detailed. They are beyond the scope of what I want to say.
If we compare the five warehouse sites to which I have referred with current legislation and assess the control of, planning and building regulations purposes, three of the sites would not require planning permission by virtue of the fact that the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982 would apply. No building regulation application for three of the warehouses would be necessary. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 would apply generally to all the sites and did at the time of the incidents. It is therefore a matter for anxiety that it appears to have failed, because, despite the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, fires of a major magnitude did take place, with severe damage to property and with severe risk to people and firefighters in the area.
It must cause anxiety that in the majority of the cases that I have detailed, which are but the tip of a very big iceberg, there was fragmented control over the sites and little effort to deal with the risks that the sites posed. The dangers of the sites were very real. It could almost be said that it was by divine intervention that no one was killed in those incidents rather than by the efforts of those bodies charged with looking after the public good.
Even more worrying is the fact that in two of the instances—40 per cent. of the instances—analysed the sites would still be bereft of legislative control and could be in business today. There appears to be no common goal of the safety enforcers. The controls, such as they are, are not complementary and do not inspire confidence. There is no interplay between the enforcers who operate independently of each other and have very little input into each other's areas of control. The anomaly in the Fire Precautions Act 1971 whereby certain warehouses are classified as "designated" and others are not is indefensible, as is the anomaly that only factory buildings that store or use highly flammable or explosive materials require a fire certificate, irrespective of the numbers employed.
The fact that the public purse in the form of the fire authority must always pay the cost of the provision of

adequate water supplies for fire-fighting purposes is an antiquated and dangerous precedent in times of restricted budgets.
The failure of both planning and building regulation controls to differentiate between the potential risk of a building or a site because of the use of blanket purpose group headings is worrying in the extreme. The hypothesis that a steel stock warehouse in the middle of a residential area could be changed overnight into a chemical storage depot without any form of control is worrying.
I shall provide the Minister with a list of 12 recommendations, but I shall briefly mention them now. I shall be demanding—and the fire service through the Fire Brigades Union will be demanding—the classification and grading of warehouses. There will need to be notification of change of storage and planning and building regulation consent will be required. There would be a need for designation of warehouses for the purposes of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. There would need to be fire protection measures for warehouses, because I believe I have demonstrated that a sprinkler at warehouses can give fire protection. There needs to be a draft marking of building regulations, which I believe that the Health and Safety Executive is circulating for discussion. On non-public sites, water supplies should be paid for by the developer or the user of the site, and not by the local authority whose finances are presently a little strapped. Fire certificates and annual inspections with reports should be mandatory, so too should be the keeping of an up-to-date list of all materials stored at a site, which should be accessible to firefighters.
I apologise for going on so long, but this is a detailed and complex matter which needs to go on record. I was a fire officer for 26 years. We must protect the firefighters who are entering unknown territory in certain factories. We must protect the general public and ensure that we make a contribution to fire safety and reduce fire losses.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I understand the wish of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) to set out his points in some detail. I know he will realise that, because of the lack of time, I shall not be able to go into all of his points in as much detail as I should have liked. I am sure the House will agree that we should listen with care to what the hon. Gentleman says about the fire service, because, as he said, he was a member of the fire service between 1957 and 1983. He has great experience in these matters and I am grateful to him for the way in which he has spoken this morning. I shall ensure that the document that he passes to me is examined in detail in the Home Office.
While I agree that we should listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman about firefighting, I am not sure that we should listen to him quite so carefully when it comes to the national economy. The country is certainly not one great warehouse now. It has a lot of warehouses, but it also has a lot of workshops, a lot of innovation, and a lot of technical expertise. There is much selling of that expertise and of financial services abroad, which makes Britain one of the economic leaders of the Western world. We have begun the eighth successive year of economic growth. That is an unparalleled record in recent history.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity, albeit briefly, to pay tribute to the fire service,


which frequently combines with other emergency services to provide an invaluable source of help and assurance for the public when disasters occur. It occasionally rescues people from terrible situations and deals with warehouse fires, which can sometimes be considerable conflagrations.
Firefighters are sometimes led into the unknown. It is a sad fact of life that the demand on their services shows no sign of diminishing. The hon. Gentleman has some detailed suggestions to make on how the work of the fire services in dealing with warehouse fires can be improved. It is perhaps appropriate, even at this early hour, to say something about finance as a background to my remarks about the fire service and warehousing.
The Government are committed to the maintenance of an efficient and effective fire service. They provide support through the block grant mechanism of the rate support grant settlement. Support will continue in the form of revenue support grant under the new local government finance system, which comes into operation in 1990. Since 1982–83 the Government have increased by 12 per cent. expenditure on the fire service. Some of the money and the effort of the fire service goes on fighting fires in warehouses. I agree that warehouse fires have often been a cause of concern, but, happily, the fire service has always risen to the occasion—as we have all grown to expect and appreciate.
All brigades take account of warehouses and other special risks, such as chemical plants and others that the

hon. Member mentioned, when arranging fire cover in their areas. Fire service resources are also deployed to meet the risk categorisation of plants, factories and warehouses. Brigades ensure that they deploy appliances so that if some disaster should occur it is dealt with as quickly as possible.
The Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council keeps all new risks under review and gives operational advice to the fire service. It can also recommend to the Government any changes in law that are thought appropriate. The hon. Gentleman told the House about some of the 12 recommendations that he will let me have after the debate so that I can ensure that my noble Friend Lord Ferrers, who has ministerial responsibility for these matters in the Home Office, can consider them.
I expect that the Home Office and the Department of the Environment will examine the important matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised about building regulations and planning, as well as about the fire brigade, so that we can send him a consolidated reply as soon as possible. I do not know whether that reply will reach the hon. Gentleman before, or after, the summer holiday. I wish him well for the holiday, which I hope gives him rather less time for what "DOD's Parliamentary Companion"' lists as his special interest, which is working-class struggle, and rather more for his recreation, which is wine making.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Eight o 'clock on Friday morning.